[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [XEN PATCH v9 2/5] x86/pvh: Allow (un)map_pirq when dom0 is PVH


  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Chen, Jiqian" <Jiqian.Chen@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:07:40 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=amd.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=amd.com; dkim=pass header.d=amd.com; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=bU2ATdsX0Yzo7wY8o3X6Dp8VNRgdUums5xFQ35452tE=; b=WK/QszVatm5jV/I5+ISwmHRS4Wbll7tFC50tV5vP+8ITMp/HBK0VBc53eOt3F/X8FEAri26GG6r7btZf91xqZwpAZCt+fIMSK0k5FYCePrJlseiF9IJzGpQV0fiqQ6evkrYvFKU062+xMdQUJZ0dcpAmwLIVwbddalniyNms0vYwHoyQr/ujGVYd+oxAubMT6qKX7vSQSoTs3OLq+sY/tGxpeyRJCdJe+Ng4uMY5aeIVH22JuTEUcUDsLB4IeFmYja8X2v4NPxoDlR1memnPBov0DUq1fyXN9+wHZ1MC1BrvQmuXO9DzfXNu79ygkiPNHV9YCbJiIPonTDFFeNvsrA==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=XNg0Y8iq3ODO4GlZX3SO84IEVp/tJyJvHJeI8Y0HPubc1i2hL9HSvDRDb1m1K/VLRJVpChiqV4GKsNHYTeR5uBf9LsrOXDjd5odUfXr4mIv2xG6aya3dh0jHjYF/306jjnnXmCH00hZylpCy/zyLtrXWGjuKlA904DoUNhdreqgADsIvI60CZsHyhAlyLLbLd6FMT6BwvuOZgOtMVOo5YGjj7V+PlQhIE8OjwOq5z0mdCFMkAjwIHzseh8FnWye6iZSLGP4hQd+8KdV4f6Sc4iHwxAWy/sRBKfO3ErOvqx2QVR5T4/9bhmk24VTE640ukD/Y5nedu9z8UGvtAOBoUw==
  • Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=amd.com;
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, "Daniel P . Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Hildebrand, Stewart" <Stewart.Hildebrand@xxxxxxx>, "Huang, Ray" <Ray.Huang@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Chen, Jiqian" <Jiqian.Chen@xxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:07:50 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Thread-index: AQHauLJgk79xZtykz0GMHuXNeMsUFbHBLLUAgALK4YD//+MLAIAAiCyA
  • Thread-topic: [XEN PATCH v9 2/5] x86/pvh: Allow (un)map_pirq when dom0 is PVH

On 2024/6/12 16:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.06.2024 04:43, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>> On 2024/6/10 23:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 07.06.2024 10:11, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>>>> If run Xen with PVH dom0 and hvm domU, hvm will map a pirq for
>>>> a passthrough device by using gsi, see qemu code
>>>> xen_pt_realize->xc_physdev_map_pirq and libxl code
>>>> pci_add_dm_done->xc_physdev_map_pirq. Then xc_physdev_map_pirq
>>>> will call into Xen, but in hvm_physdev_op, PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq
>>>> is not allowed because currd is PVH dom0 and PVH has no
>>>> X86_EMU_USE_PIRQ flag, it will fail at has_pirq check.
>>>>
>>>> So, allow PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq when dom0 is PVH and also allow
>>>> PHYSDEVOP_unmap_pirq for the failed path to unmap pirq. And
>>>> add a new check to prevent self map when subject domain has no
>>>> PIRQ flag.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Huang Rui <ray.huang@xxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiqian Chen <Jiqian.Chen@xxxxxxx>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> What's imo missing in the description is a clarification / justification of
>>> why it is going to be a good idea (or at least an acceptable one) to expose
>>> the concept of PIRQs to PVH. If I'm not mistaken that concept so far has
>>> been entirely a PV one.
>> I didn't want to expose the concept of PIRQs to PVH.
>> I did this patch is for HVM that use PIRQs, what I said in commit message is 
>> HVM will map a pirq for gsi, not PVH.
>> For the original code, it checks " !has_pirq(currd)", but currd is PVH dom0, 
>> so it failed. So I need to allow PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq
>> even currd has no PIRQs, but the subject domain has.
> 
> But that's not what you're enforcing in do_physdev_op(). There you only
> prevent self-mapping. If I'm not mistaken all you need to do is drop the
> "d == current->domain" checks from those conditionals.
What I want is to allow PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq when currd doesn't have PIRQs, but 
subject domain has.
Then I just add "break" in hvm_physdev_op without any checks, that will cause 
self-mapping problems.
And in previous mail thread, you suggested me to prevent self-mapping when 
subject domain doesn't have PIRQs.
So I added checks in do_physdev_op.

> 
> Further see also
> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2024-06/msg00540.html.
> 
> Jan

-- 
Best regards,
Jiqian Chen.

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.