Hi Zhenzhon,

Yes, you can have a look at table 26 of VT-d 4.1 or table 30 of VT-d 5.1.

These faults are descibed as follows:

"When remapping hardware detects a recoverable fault on a translation-request 
from Device-TLB, it is
not reported to software as a fault. Instead, remapping hardware sends a 
successful translation
completion with limited or no permission/privileges"

In the aforementioned tables, such erros contain mentions like "Success with 
R=W=U=S=0" or "Success with effective permission".

cmd

________________________________
From: Duan, Zhenzhong <[email protected]>
Sent: 09 February 2026 08:34
To: CLEMENT MATHIEU--DRIF <[email protected]>; 
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Tian, Kevin 
<[email protected]>; Liu, Yi L <[email protected]>; 
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] intel_iommu: Do not report recoverable faults to host

Caution: External email. Do not open attachments or click links, unless this 
email comes from a known sender and you know the content is safe.


Hi Clement,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Clement Mathieu--Drif <[email protected]>
>Subject: [PATCH] intel_iommu: Do not report recoverable faults to host
>
>Signed-off-by: Clement Mathieu--Drif <[email protected]>
>---
> hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
>index dd00079a40..0735b24ac0 100644
>--- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
>+++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
>@@ -1857,6 +1857,21 @@ static const bool vtd_qualified_faults[] = {
>     [VTD_FR_MAX] = false,
> };
>
>+static const bool vtd_recoverable_faults[] = {
>+    [VTD_FR_WRITE] = true,
>+    [VTD_FR_READ] = true,
>+    [VTD_FR_PASID_DIR_ENTRY_P] = true,
>+    [VTD_FR_PASID_ENTRY_P] = true,
>+    [VTD_FR_FS_PAGING_ENTRY_INV] = true,
>+    [VTD_FR_FS_PAGING_ENTRY_P] = true,
>+    [VTD_FR_FS_PAGING_ENTRY_RSVD] = true,
>+    [VTD_FR_PASID_ENTRY_FSPTPTR_INV] = true,
>+    [VTD_FR_FS_NON_CANONICAL] = true,
>+    [VTD_FR_FS_PAGING_ENTRY_US] = true,
>+    [VTD_FR_SM_WRITE] = true,

Which fault reason is classified as recoverable fault?
Is this documented somewhere?

Thanks
Zhenzhong

>+    [VTD_FR_MAX] = false,
>+};
>+
> /* To see if a fault condition is "qualified", which is reported to software
>  * only if the FPD field in the context-entry used to process the faulting
>  * request is 0.
>@@ -1866,6 +1881,11 @@ static inline bool
>vtd_is_qualified_fault(VTDFaultReason fault)
>     return vtd_qualified_faults[fault];
> }
>
>+static inline bool vtd_is_recoverable_fault(VTDFaultReason fault, int 
>iommu_idx)
>+{
>+    return iommu_idx == VTD_IDX_ATS && vtd_recoverable_faults[fault];
>+}
>+
> static inline bool vtd_is_interrupt_addr(hwaddr addr)
> {
>     return VTD_INTERRUPT_ADDR_FIRST <= addr && addr <=
>VTD_INTERRUPT_ADDR_LAST;
>@@ -2237,8 +2257,10 @@ static bool
>vtd_do_iommu_translate(VTDAddressSpace *vtd_as, PCIBus *bus,
>     }
>
>     if (ret_fr) {
>-        vtd_report_fault(s, -ret_fr, is_fpd_set, source_id,
>-                         addr, is_write, pasid != PCI_NO_PASID, pasid);
>+        if (!vtd_is_recoverable_fault(-ret_fr, iommu_idx)) {
>+            vtd_report_fault(s, -ret_fr, is_fpd_set, source_id,
>+                            addr, is_write, pasid != PCI_NO_PASID, pasid);
>+        }
>         goto error;
>     }
>
>--
>2.53.0

Reply via email to