Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:18:04 +0200 | From | Joerg Roedel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 12/13] iommu/amd: Clear out the GV flag when handle deferred domain attach |
| |
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 09:13:20PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > On 08/04/17 at 02:30pm, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:37:28PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > > @@ -2466,11 +2472,21 @@ static struct protection_domain *get_domain(struct device *dev) > > > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > > > > > domain = get_dev_data(dev)->domain; > > > - if (domain == NULL && get_dev_data(dev)->defer_attach) { > > > + if (domain == NULL && dev_data->defer_attach) { > > > + u16 alias = amd_iommu_alias_table[dev_data->devid]; > > > get_dev_data(dev)->defer_attach = false; > > > io_domain = iommu_get_domain_for_dev(dev); > > > domain = to_pdomain(io_domain); > > > attach_device(dev, domain); > > > + /* > > > + * If the deferred attached domain is not v2, should clear out > > > + * the old GV flag. > > > + */ > > > + if (!(domain->flags & PD_IOMMUV2_MASK)) { > > > + clear_dte_flag_gv(dev_data->devid); > > > + if (alias != dev_data->devid) > > > + clear_dte_flag_gv(dev_data->devid); > > > > Hmm, thinking more about it, I am not sure what the IOMMU responds to > > PRI/PASID prefixes if the GV flag is 0. > > > > But until we know it causes problems we should just disable the bit > > while doing the copy in the previous patch and avoid any special > > handling like done here. > > So just drop this patch, right? Will do if I got it right. Thanks.
Yes, and clear the GV flag in the previous patch too.
| |