[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 10/19] vfio: Add infrastructure for bind_iommufd from userspace

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:56:11PM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at nvidia.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 8:52 PM
> > 
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:45:47PM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at nvidia.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 8:31 PM
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 06:58:38AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Seems like pt_id is no more needed in the vfio_iommufd_bind()
> > > > > since it can get compat_ioas_id in the function itself. Cdev path
> > > > > never passes a pt_id to vfio_iommufd_bind() as its attach is done
> > > > > by separate ATTACH ioctl. Can we use the dev_id pointer to indicate
> > > > > if it needs to get the compat ioas and attach it?
> > > >
> > > > In this case you need to split the group code to also use the two step
> > > > attach and then the attach will take in the null pt_id.
> > >
> > > This seems to be the current way in this patch. Right? Group code passes
> > > a pt_id pointer to vfio_iommufd_bind(). While the cdev path just passes
> > > in a null pt_id pointer. Its attach is done later when user gives pt_id.
> > 
> > I mean actually explicitly call attach and remove the implicit attach
> > during bind flow entirely.
> 
> Okay, so I can wrap the iommufd_vfio_compat_ioas_id() and ops->attach_ioas
> in a helper for group code to do attach after bind_iommufd. This can avoid to
> moving the iommufd_vfio_compat_ioas_id() out of iommufd.c as your original
> remark.
> 
> Is this ok?

Yes, some 'attach compat' helper makes sense

Jason