[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/5] iommu / pci: re-implement XEN_DOMCTL_get_device_group...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Pau Monne > Sent: 15 May 2019 10:07 > To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/5] iommu / pci: re-implement > XEN_DOMCTL_get_device_group... > > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 02:24:03PM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: > > ... using the new iommu_group infrastructure. > > > > Because 'sibling' devices are now members of the same iommu_group, > > implement the domctl by looking up the relevant iommu_group and walking > > the membership list. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c | 65 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c | 47 ----------------------------- > > xen/include/xen/iommu.h | 2 ++ > > 3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c > > b/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c > > index 11319fbaae..49140c652e 100644 > > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c > > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c > > @@ -729,6 +729,71 @@ int iommu_group_assign(struct pci_dev *pdev) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static struct iommu_group *iommu_group_lookup(uint16_t seg, uint8_t bus, > > + uint8_t devfn) > > Could you use pci_sbdf_t to pass the SBDF? > Probably, I'd not noticed its existence so I'll use it when I can. > > +{ > > + unsigned int id = 0; > > + struct iommu_group *grp; > > + > > + while ( radix_tree_gang_lookup(&iommu_groups, (void **)&grp, id, 1) ) > > + { > > + struct pci_dev *pdev; > > + > > + list_for_each_entry ( pdev, &grp->devs_list, grpdevs_list ) > > + if ( pdev->seg == seg && pdev->bus == bus && > > + pdev->devfn == devfn ) > > + return grp; > > + > > + id = grp->id + 1; > > + } > > + > > + return NULL; > > +} > > + > > +int iommu_get_device_group(struct domain *d, u16 seg, u8 bus, u8 devfn, > > Using pci_sbdf_t would be better here to pass the SBDF IMO, or > uint<size>_t, or just plain unsigned int. > > Also, I wonder about the usefulness of the domain parameter, shouldn't > you do the ownership check somewhere else (if required) and have this > function just check the IOMMU group of a given PCI device? > > (Note you probably want to constify the domain parameter if it needs to > stay). Yes and no. This is the implementation of an existing domctl so it's semantics are baked in. I think I can use pci_sbdf_t but the domain parameter needs to stay. > > > + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(uint32) buf, int max_sdevs) > > +{ > > + struct iommu_group *grp; > > + struct pci_dev *pdev; > > + int i = 0; > > It seems like this should be unsigned int? > Yes, I guess it could be. > > + > > + pcidevs_lock(); > > + > > + grp = iommu_group_lookup(seg, bus, devfn); > > + if ( !grp ) > > + { > > + pcidevs_unlock(); > > + return 0; > > + } > > + > > + list_for_each_entry ( pdev, &grp->devs_list, grpdevs_list ) > > + { > > + uint32_t sbdf; > > + > > + if ( i >= max_sdevs ) > > + break; > > + > > + if ( pdev->domain != d ) > > + continue; > > + > > + sbdf = PCI_SBDF3(pdev->seg, pdev->bus, pdev->devfn); > > + > > + if ( xsm_get_device_group(XSM_HOOK, sbdf) ) > > + continue; > > + > > + if ( unlikely(copy_to_guest_offset(buf, i, &sbdf, 1)) ) > > + { > > + pcidevs_unlock(); > > + return -1; > > -EFAULT? > Yes... then I can get rid of the override of the ret value in the calling code. Paul _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |