[RFC PATCH v4 03/16] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add initial pSMMU realm viommu plumbing
Aneesh Kumar K.V
aneesh.kumar at kernel.org
Wed Sep 2 09:39:15 PDT 2026
Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar at kernel.org> writes:
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at ziepe.ca> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 02:30:00PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at ziepe.ca> writes:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 03:36:37PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> @@ -463,14 +460,13 @@
>>> >> vsmmu->vmid = s2_parent->s2_cfg.vmid;
>>> >>
>>> >> if (viommu->type == IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_ARM_SMMUV3) {
>>> >> + if (arm_smmu_is_realm_viommu(viommu))
>>> >> + return arm_realm_smmu_v3_init(viommu, user_data);
>>> >> +
>>> >
>>> > I think the realm vsmmu is going to require a different info struct
>>> > than the normal psmmu case, isn't it?
>>> >
>>> > If so it needs its own enum value.
>>> >
>>> > It would be nice to see a draft patch showing how the real vsmmu works
>>> > on top of the RMM spec for it. If we are using a viommu object then
>>> > non-vsmmu case should be identical just with an option in the info
>>> > struct to not create the vsmmu object.
>>>
>>> Based on feedback on other emails in this thread, I have now implemented
>>> this without using a vdevice or viommu. This should make the CCA and
>>> non-CCA cases similar.
>>
>> That wasn't the feedback. The feedback was to use the viommu and not
>> make a bunch of new stuff..
>>
>
> That rework was done before I saw your discussion with Nicolin.
>
> To reiterate, for this configuration:
>
> - The viommu will use a stage-1 bypass configuration.
> - A new IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_ARM_REALM_SMMUV3 type will create the viommu.
> The psmmu will be activated at this point to avoid creating psmmu
> objects early. We will reference-count it to ensure that the same
> psmmu is shared across realm guests.
> - Creating a vdevice will invoke SMC_RMI_PSMMU_ST_L2_CREATE.
>
> I am unclear about the vdev_create suggestion. Creating a vdevice
> requires an RD, which is created later in the flow above. How do you
> suggest linking vdevice_alloc to vdev_create?
>
I was able to prototype the following flow:
- The viommu uses a stage-1 bypass configuration.
- A new IOMMU_VIOMMU_TYPE_ARM_REALM_SMMUV3 type creates the viommu.
The pSMMU is activated at this point to avoid creating pSMMU objects
early. It is reference-counted so that the same pSMMU can be shared
across realm guests.
- The realm is created during viommu allocation, ensuring that the
vSMMU can be created here.
- Creating a vdevice invokes SMC_RMI_PSMMU_ST_L2_CREATE.
- This is followed by tsm_bind() if the device has an established TSM
link.
static int arm_realm_smmu_v3_vdevice_init(struct iommufd_vdevice *vdev)
{
struct device *dev = iommufd_vdevice_to_device(vdev);
struct kvm *kvm = vdev->viommu->kvm_file->private_data;
struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
struct arm_smmu_stream *stream;
struct arm_smmu_master *master;
unsigned long rmi_ret = 0;
unsigned long l2_sid;
int ret;
if (!tsm_is_configured(dev))
return 0;
master = dev_iommu_priv_get(dev);
/* FIXME which stream to pick */
/* At this moment, iommufd only supports PCI device that has one SID */
stream = &master->streams[0];
smmu = master->smmu;
l2_sid = ALIGN_DOWN(stream->id, STRTAB_NUM_L2_STES);
{
guard(mutex)(&smmu->realm.mutex);
if (!arm_realm_smmu_active(smmu))
return -EINVAL;
ret = rmi_psmmu_st_l2_create(smmu->base_phys, l2_sid,
&rmi_ret);
if (ret || rmi_ret) {
if (!ret)
return -EIO;
if (RMI_RETURN_STATUS(rmi_ret) != RMI_ERROR_PSMMU_ST ||
RMI_RETURN_INDEX(rmi_ret) != 2) {
dev_warn(dev, "failed to create realm stream mapping\n");
return -EIO;
}
/* The L2 stream table already exists. */
}
}
vdev->destroy = arm_realm_smmu_v3_vdevice_destroy;
return tsm_bind(dev, kvm, vdev->virt_id);
}
- tsm_bind() calls cca_tsm_bind(), which in turn calls vdev_create().
- After boot, the guest locks the device. This generates an RHI request
that reaches cca_tsm_guest_req() with RHI_DA_TDI_CONFIG_LOCKED.
- cca_tsm_guest_req() now handles TSM_REQ_SET_TDI_STATE requests for
the unlocked, locked, and running states.
@@ -513,10 +514,16 @@ static ssize_t cca_tsm_guest_req(struct pci_tdi *tdi,
if (copy_from_user((void *)&req_obj, req.user, req_len))
return -EFAULT;
- if (req_obj.tdi_state != RHI_DA_TDI_CONFIG_RUN)
+ switch (req_obj.tdi_state) {
+ case RHI_DA_TDI_CONFIG_UNLOCKED:
+ return cca_vdev_device_unlock(pdev);
+ case RHI_DA_TDI_CONFIG_LOCKED:
+ return cca_vdev_device_lock(pdev);
+ case RHI_DA_TDI_CONFIG_RUN:
+ return cca_vdev_device_start(pdev);
+ default:
return -EINVAL;
-
- return cca_vdev_device_start(pdev);
+ }
}
-aneesh
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list