Dan Williams wrote: > Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > > > > > On 4/6/25 08:47, Dan Williams wrote: > > > Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > > > [..] > > >>> Ok, something like this? and iommufd will call tsm_bind()? > > >> > > >> Remember that there may be other devices, AMBA CHI based devices > > >> being assigned. Not sure if they pretend to be PCI or not. > > > > > > I have been thinking about this especially with the relative ease of > > > creating samples/devsec/ given the existing Linux infrastructure > > > emulating PCI host bridges. > > > > > > Why not require PCI emulation for non-PCI devices? The tipping point is > > > whether the relative maintenance burden of not needing to maintain > > > multi-bus Device Security infrastructure outweighs the complexity of > > > impedance matching those other buses to PCI. > > > > > > Make "PCI" the lingua franca of Device Security. > > > > This is how virtio started, and now it has to behave like a proper PCI > > device, i.e. use DMA API. Or ivshmem which maps memory as "PCI" (which > > it is not PCI but the guest does not know it) and is deprecated now. > > Not the best idea to enforce PCI from day1 imho. > > VFIO is a Linux convention. PCIe TDISP is an industry standard protocol. Oh, sorry you said "virtio" not "vfio", but the point is still that we have not even got one implementation of a bus Device Security protocol upstream, let alone multiple.
