Re: [PATCH] libxl: tooling expects wrong errno

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Roger Pau Monne writes ("Re: [PATCH] libxl: tooling expects wrong errno"):
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:59:50PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Grzegorz Uriasz writes ("[PATCH] libxl: tooling expects wrong errno"):
> > > When iommu is not enabled for a given domain then pci passthrough
> > > hypercalls such as xc_test_assign_device return EOPNOTSUPP.
> > > The code responsible for this is in "iommu_do_domctl" inside
> > > xen/drivers/passthrough/iommu.c
> > > This patch fixes the error message reported by libxl when assigning
> > > pci devices to domains without iommu.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Grzegorz Uriasz <gorbak25@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Grzegorz Uriasz <gorbak25@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
> > > index 957ff5c8e9..bc5843b137 100644
> > > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
> > > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
> > > @@ -1561,7 +1561,7 @@ void libxl__device_pci_add(libxl__egc *egc, 
> > > uint32_t domid,
> > >              LOGD(ERROR, domid,
> > >                   "PCI device %04x:%02x:%02x.%u %s?",
> > >                   pcidev->domain, pcidev->bus, pcidev->dev, pcidev->func,
> > > -                 errno == ENOSYS ? "cannot be assigned - no IOMMU"
> > > +                 errno == EOPNOTSUPP ? "cannot be assigned - no IOMMU"
> > >                   : "already assigned to a different guest");
> > >              goto out;
> > >          }
> > 
> > Thanks.  I have addressed some Xen IOMMU maintainers.  Can you confirm
> > whether this is right ?
> 
> Not an IOMMU maintainer myself, but I've taken a look at the code and
> I think Grzegorz is right. iommu_do_domctl will return -EOPNOTSUPP if
> the IOMMU is not enabled for the domain. Another option would be to
> check for EBUSY (which will certainly be returned when the device is
> busy) and log the error code with a message when it's different than
> EBUSY?
> 
> There are many possible error here, for example the device itself
> might not be behind an IOMMU, in which case Xen will return -ENODEV at
> least on the Intel case.

Thanks for the analysis.  So:

Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

This would seem to be a backport candidate.  AFAICT check has been
there, looking for ENOSYS, since this code was introduced in
   826eb17271d3c647516d9944c47b0779afedea25
   libxl: suppress device assignment to HVM guest when there is no IOMMU
?

But that commit has a Tested-by.  Maybe Xen changed its error return
at some point ?

Ian.