Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] xen/vpci: header: filter PCI capabilities

[Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebrand@xxxxxxx>]

On 8/31/23 08:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.08.2023 19:56, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
>> Currently, Xen vPCI only supports virtualizing the MSI and MSI-X 
>> capabilities.
>> Hide all other PCI capabilities (including extended capabilities) from domUs 
>> for
>> now, even though there may be certain devices/drivers that depend on being 
>> able
>> to discover certain capabilities.
>>
>> We parse the physical PCI capabilities linked list and add vPCI register
>> handlers for the next elements, inserting our own next value, thus 
>> presenting a
>> modified linked list to the domU.
>>
>> Introduce helper functions vpci_hw_read8 and vpci_read_val. The vpci_read_val
>> helper function returns a fixed value, which may be used for RAZ registers, 
>> or
>> registers whose value doesn't change.
>>
>> Introduce pci_find_next_cap_ttl() helper while adapting the logic from
>> pci_find_next_cap() to suit our needs, and implement the existing
>> pci_find_next_cap() in terms of the new helper.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebrand@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>> 
> Nevertheless a couple of remarks:
> 
>> --- a/xen/drivers/pci/pci.c
>> +++ b/xen/drivers/pci/pci.c
>> @@ -39,31 +39,44 @@ unsigned int pci_find_cap_offset(pci_sbdf_t sbdf, 
>> unsigned int cap)
>>      return 0;
>>  }
>>
>> -unsigned int pci_find_next_cap(pci_sbdf_t sbdf, unsigned int pos,
>> -                               unsigned int cap)
>> +unsigned int pci_find_next_cap_ttl(pci_sbdf_t sbdf, unsigned int pos,
>> +                                   bool (*is_match)(unsigned int, unsigned 
>> int),
>> +                                   unsigned int userdata, unsigned int *ttl)
>>  {
>> -    u8 id;
>> -    int ttl = 48;
>> +    unsigned int id;
>>
>> -    while ( ttl-- )
>> +    while ( (*ttl)-- )
>>      {
>>          pos = pci_conf_read8(sbdf, pos);
>>          if ( pos < 0x40 )
>>              break;
>>
>> -        pos &= ~3;
>> -        id = pci_conf_read8(sbdf, pos + PCI_CAP_LIST_ID);
>> +        id = pci_conf_read8(sbdf, (pos & ~3) + PCI_CAP_LIST_ID);
>>
>>          if ( id == 0xff )
>>              break;
>> -        if ( id == cap )
>> +        if ( is_match(id, userdata) )
>>              return pos;
>>
>> -        pos += PCI_CAP_LIST_NEXT;
>> +        pos = (pos & ~3) + PCI_CAP_LIST_NEXT;
>>      }
>> +
>>      return 0;
>>  }
>>
>> +static bool cf_check is_cap_match(unsigned int id1, unsigned int id2)
>> +{
>> +    return id1 == id2;
>> +}
> 
> Personally I would have preferred to get away without yet another hook
> function here, by ...
> 
>> +unsigned int pci_find_next_cap(pci_sbdf_t sbdf, unsigned int pos,
>> +                               unsigned int cap)
>> +{
>> +    unsigned int ttl = 48;
>> +
>> +    return pci_find_next_cap_ttl(sbdf, pos, is_cap_match, cap, &ttl) & ~3;
> 
> ... passing NULL here and then suitably handling the case in that
> common helper.

Thinking in terms of reducing the amount of dead code, I'll change it

>> @@ -561,6 +573,71 @@ static int cf_check init_bars(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>      if ( rc )
>>          return rc;
>>
>> +    if ( !is_hardware_domain(pdev->domain) )
>> +    {
>> +        if ( !(pci_conf_read16(pdev->sbdf, PCI_STATUS) & 
>> PCI_STATUS_CAP_LIST) )
>> +        {
>> +            /* RAZ/WI */
>> +            rc = vpci_add_register(pdev->vpci, vpci_read_val, NULL,
>> +                                   PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST, 1, (void *)0);
>> +            if ( rc )
>> +                return rc;
>> +        }
>> +        else
>> +        {
>> +            /* Only expose capabilities to the guest that vPCI can handle. 
>> */
>> +            uint8_t next;
> 
> If this was "unsigned long", ...
> 
>> +            unsigned int ttl = 48;
>> +
>> +            next = pci_find_next_cap_ttl(pdev->sbdf, PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST,
>> +                                         vpci_cap_supported, 0, &ttl);
>> +
>> +            rc = vpci_add_register(pdev->vpci, vpci_read_val, NULL,
>> +                                   PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST, 1,
>> +                                   (void *)(uintptr_t)next);
> 
> ... you'd avoid the need for the double cast here and again below. Yet
> then I realize that Misra would take offence at us doing so ...

As ugly as that double cast is, I think I prefer the next and pos declarations 
have consistent types (which I had intended to be unsigned int to match the 
prior patches, not uint8_t). As well as not making the MISRA situation any 
worse. The casts, after all, make it excruciatingly obvious what we're doing 
here, I hope.

Stew