From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF2BC47E48
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:58:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89600613D4
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 13:58:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S237636AbhGOOBS (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 15 Jul 2021 10:01:18 -0400
Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:20638 "EHLO mga05.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S229637AbhGOOBR (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 15 Jul 2021 10:01:17 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10045"; a="296191419"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,242,1620716400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="296191419"
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
  by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jul 2021 06:58:24 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,242,1620716400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="494592190"
Received: from otc-nc-03.jf.intel.com (HELO otc-nc-03) ([10.54.39.36])
  by orsmga001-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jul 2021 06:58:23 -0700
Date:   Thu, 15 Jul 2021 06:57:57 -0700
From:   "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Shenming Lu <lushenming@huawei.com>,
        "Alex Williamson (alex.williamson@redhat.com)" 
        <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "parav@mellanox.com" <parav@mellanox.com>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@intel.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
        "wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com" <wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] /dev/iommu uAPI proposal
Message-ID: <20210715135757.GC590891@otc-nc-03>
References: <BN9PR11MB5433B1E4AE5B0480369F97178C189@BN9PR11MB5433.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <7ea349f8-8c53-e240-fe80-382954ba7f28@huawei.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5433A9B792441CAF21A183A38C129@BN9PR11MB5433.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <a8edb2c1-9c9c-6204-072c-4f1604b7dace@huawei.com>
 <BN9PR11MB54336D6A8CAE31F951770A428C129@BN9PR11MB5433.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20210715124813.GC543781@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210715124813.GC543781@nvidia.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 09:48:13AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 06:49:54AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> 
> > No. You are right on this case. I don't think there is a way to 
> > differentiate one mdev from the other if they come from the
> > same parent and attached by the same guest process. In this
> > case the fault could be reported on either mdev (e.g. the first
> > matching one) to get it fixed in the guest.
> 
> If the IOMMU can't distinguish the two mdevs they are not isolated
> and would have to share a group. Since group sharing is not supported
> today this seems like a non-issue

Does this mean we have to prevent 2 mdev's from same pdev being assigned to
the same guest?