Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] intel-iommu: don't warn guest errors when getting rid2pasid entry

[Jason Wang]

On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 3:34 PM Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 4:37 PM
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:16 PM Tian, Kevin <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 12:52 PM
> > > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Currently the implementation of vtd_ce_get_rid2pasid_entry() is also
> > > > >>> problematic. According to VT-d spec, RID2PASID field is effective 
> > > > >>> only
> > > > >>> when ecap.rps is true otherwise PASID#0 is used for RID2PASID. I
> > didn't
> > > > >>> see ecap.rps is set, neither is it checked in that function. It
> > > > >>> works possibly
> > > > >>> just because Linux currently programs 0 to RID2PASID...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This seems to be another issue since the introduction of scalable 
> > > > >> mode.
> > > > >
> > > > > yes. this is not introduced in this series. The current scalable mode
> > > > > vIOMMU support was following 3.0 spec, while RPS is added in 3.1.
> > Needs
> > > > > to be fixed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Interesting, so this is more complicated when dealing with migration
> > > > compatibility. So what I suggest is probably something like:
> > > >
> > > > -device intel-iommu,version=$version
> > > >
> > > > Then we can maintain migration compatibility correctly. For 3.0 we can
> > > > go without RPS and 3.1 and above we need to implement RPS.
> > >
> > > This is sensible. Probably a new version number is created only when
> > > it breaks compatibility with an old version, i.e. not necessarily to 
> > > follow
> > > every release from VT-d spec. In this case we definitely need one from
> > > 3.0 to 3.1+ given RID2PASID working on a 3.0 implementation will
> > > trigger a reserved fault due to RPS not set on a 3.1 implementation.
> >
> > 3.0 should be fine, but I need to check whether there's another
> > difference for PASID mode.
> >
> > It would be helpful if there's a chapter in the spec to describe the
> > difference of behaviours.
>
> There is a section called 'Revision History' in the start of the VT-d spec.
> It talks about changes in each revision, e.g.:
> --
>   June 2019, 3.1:
>
>   Added support for RID-PASID capability (RPS field in ECAP_REG).

Good to know that, does it mean, except for this revision history, all
the other semantics keep backward compatibility across the version?

> --
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Since most of the advanced features has not been implemented, we may
> > > > probably start just from 3.4 (assuming it's the latest version). And all
> > > > of the following effort should be done for 3.4 in order to productize 
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agree. btw in your understanding is intel-iommu in a production quality
> > > now?
> >
> > Red Hat supports vIOMMU for the guest DPDK path now.
> >
> > For scalable-mode we need to see some use cases then we can evaluate.
> > virtio SVA could be a possible use case, but it requires more work e.g
> > PRS queue.
>
> Yes it's not ready for full evaluation yet.
>
> The current state before your change is exactly feature-on-par with the
> legacy mode, except using scalable format in certain structures. That alone
> is not worthy of a formal evaluation.

Right.

Thanks

>
> >
> > > If not, do we want to apply this version scheme only when it
> > > reaches the production quality or also in the experimental phase?
> >
> > Yes. E.g if we think scalable mode is mature, we can enable 3.0.
> >
>
> Nice to know.
>
> Thanks
> Kevin