[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 21/28] ARM: vITS: handle MAPTI command
On Thu, 11 May 2017, Andre Przywara wrote: > @@ -556,6 +583,93 @@ static int its_handle_mapd(struct virt_its *its, > uint64_t *cmdptr) > return ret; > } > > +static int its_handle_mapti(struct virt_its *its, uint64_t *cmdptr) > +{ > + uint32_t devid = its_cmd_get_deviceid(cmdptr); > + uint32_t eventid = its_cmd_get_id(cmdptr); > + uint32_t intid = its_cmd_get_physical_id(cmdptr), _intid; > + uint16_t collid = its_cmd_get_collection(cmdptr); > + struct pending_irq *pirq; > + struct vcpu *vcpu = NULL; > + int ret = -1; I think we need to check the eventid to be valid, don't we? > + if ( its_cmd_get_command(cmdptr) == GITS_CMD_MAPI ) > + intid = eventid; > + > + spin_lock(&its->its_lock); > + /* > + * Check whether there is a valid existing mapping. If yes, behavior is > + * unpredictable, we choose to ignore this command here. > + * This makes sure we start with a pristine pending_irq below. > + */ > + if ( read_itte_locked(its, devid, eventid, &vcpu, &_intid) && > + _intid != INVALID_LPI ) > + { > + spin_unlock(&its->its_lock); > + return -1; > + } > + > + /* Enter the mapping in our virtual ITS tables. */ > + if ( !write_itte_locked(its, devid, eventid, collid, intid, &vcpu) ) > + { > + spin_unlock(&its->its_lock); > + return -1; > + } > + > + spin_unlock(&its->its_lock); > + > + /* > + * Connect this virtual LPI to the corresponding host LPI, which is > + * determined by the same device ID and event ID on the host side. > + * This returns us the corresponding, still unused pending_irq. > + */ > + pirq = gicv3_assign_guest_event(its->d, its->doorbell_address, > + devid, eventid, vcpu, intid); > + if ( !pirq ) > + goto out_remove_mapping; > + > + vgic_init_pending_irq(pirq, intid); > + > + /* > + * Now read the guest's property table to initialize our cached state. > + * It can't fire at this time, because it is not known to the host yet. > + * We don't need the VGIC VCPU lock here, because the pending_irq isn't > + * in the radix tree yet. > + */ > + ret = update_lpi_property(its->d, pirq); > + if ( ret ) > + goto out_remove_host_entry; > + > + pirq->lpi_vcpu_id = vcpu->vcpu_id; > + /* > + * Mark this LPI as new, so any older (now unmapped) LPI in any LR > + * can be easily recognised as such. > + */ > + set_bit(GIC_IRQ_GUEST_PRISTINE_LPI, &pirq->status); > + > + /* > + * Now insert the pending_irq into the domain's LPI tree, so that > + * it becomes live. > + */ > + write_lock(&its->d->arch.vgic.pend_lpi_tree_lock); > + ret = radix_tree_insert(&its->d->arch.vgic.pend_lpi_tree, intid, pirq); > + write_unlock(&its->d->arch.vgic.pend_lpi_tree_lock); > + > + if ( !ret ) > + return 0; > + > +out_remove_host_entry: > + gicv3_remove_guest_event(its->d, its->doorbell_address, devid, eventid); > + > +out_remove_mapping: > + spin_lock(&its->its_lock); > + write_itte_locked(its, devid, eventid, > + UNMAPPED_COLLECTION, INVALID_LPI, NULL); > + spin_unlock(&its->its_lock); > + > + return ret; > +} _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |