[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] vpci/rebar: Remove registers when init_rebar() fails
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 03:32:13PM +0800, Jiqian Chen wrote: > When init_rebar() fails, the new codes will try to hide Rebar > capability, so it can't rely on vpci_deassign_device() to remove > all Rebar related registers anymore, those registers must be > cleaned up in failure path of init_rebar. > > To do that, use a vpci_register array to record all Rebar registers > and call vpci_remove_register() to remove registers. > > Signed-off-by: Jiqian Chen <Jiqian.Chen@xxxxxxx> > --- > xen/drivers/vpci/rebar.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++------------- > xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c | 14 -------------- > xen/include/xen/vpci.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/drivers/vpci/rebar.c b/xen/drivers/vpci/rebar.c > index 7c53ee031887..5f2f9978feb9 100644 > --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/rebar.c > +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/rebar.c > @@ -51,8 +51,11 @@ static void cf_check rebar_ctrl_write(const struct pci_dev > *pdev, > > static int cf_check init_rebar(struct pci_dev *pdev) > { > + int rc = 0; > uint32_t ctrl; > unsigned int nbars; > + unsigned int reg_index = 0; > + struct vpci_register registers[VPCI_CAP_MAX_REGISTER]; I'm not sure I like this approach much, as it seems to be quite cumbersome. Iff we really want to go that route I would recommend that you use a much lighter structure here, struct vpci_register has a bunch of fields that are not used at all by the purposes here. You just want a struct with and offset and a size fields. > unsigned int rebar_offset = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev->sbdf, > > PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_REBAR); > > @@ -70,17 +73,17 @@ static int cf_check init_rebar(struct pci_dev *pdev) > nbars = MASK_EXTR(ctrl, PCI_REBAR_CTRL_NBAR_MASK); > for ( unsigned int i = 0; i < nbars; i++ ) > { > - int rc; > + const unsigned int offset = rebar_offset + PCI_REBAR_CTRL(i); > struct vpci_bar *bar; > unsigned int index; > > - ctrl = pci_conf_read32(pdev->sbdf, rebar_offset + PCI_REBAR_CTRL(i)); > + ctrl = pci_conf_read32(pdev->sbdf, offset); > index = ctrl & PCI_REBAR_CTRL_BAR_IDX; > if ( index >= PCI_HEADER_NORMAL_NR_BARS ) > { > printk(XENLOG_ERR "%pd %pp: too big BAR number %u in > REBAR_CTRL\n", > pdev->domain, &pdev->sbdf, index); > - continue; > + goto fail; > } > > bar = &pdev->vpci->header.bars[index]; > @@ -88,24 +91,19 @@ static int cf_check init_rebar(struct pci_dev *pdev) > { > printk(XENLOG_ERR "%pd %pp: BAR%u is not in memory space\n", > pdev->domain, &pdev->sbdf, index); > - continue; > + goto fail; > } > > rc = vpci_add_register(pdev->vpci, vpci_hw_read32, rebar_ctrl_write, > - rebar_offset + PCI_REBAR_CTRL(i), 4, bar); > + offset, 4, bar); > if ( rc ) > { > printk(XENLOG_ERR "%pd %pp: BAR%u fail to add reg of REBAR_CTRL > rc=%d\n", > pdev->domain, &pdev->sbdf, index, rc); > - /* > - * Ideally we would hide the ReBar capability on error, but code > - * for doing so still needs to be written. Use continue instead > - * to keep any already setup register hooks, as returning an > - * error will cause the hardware domain to get unmediated access > - * to all device registers. > - */ > - continue; > + goto fail; > } > + registers[reg_index].offset = offset; > + registers[reg_index++].size = 4; > > bar->resizable_sizes = > MASK_EXTR(pci_conf_read32(pdev->sbdf, > @@ -117,6 +115,15 @@ static int cf_check init_rebar(struct pci_dev *pdev) > } > > return 0; > + > + fail: > + for ( unsigned int i = 0; i < reg_index; i++ ) > + if ( vpci_remove_register(pdev->vpci, > + registers[i].offset, > + registers[i].size) ) > + continue; Keep in mind it's fine to remove registers that are not there, iow you could possibly do: for ( unsigned int i = 0; i < nbars; i++ ) if ( vpci_remove_register(pdev->vpci, rebar_offset + PCI_REBAR_CTRL(i), 4) ) continue; And it would be fine IMO, without the need to store exactly which registers have been added. It's not like there's much that can be done from vpci_remove_register() failing in this context. In fact you can remove the __must_check from vpci_remove_register(), I don't think it's helpful at all. > + > + return rc; > } > REGISTER_VPCI_EXTEND_CAP(PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_REBAR, init_rebar, > VPCI_PRIORITY_LOW); > > diff --git a/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c b/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c > index a8362e46e097..ea81d8cc9604 100644 > --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c > +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c > @@ -21,20 +21,6 @@ > #include <xen/vpci.h> > #include <xen/vmap.h> > > -/* Internal struct to store the emulated PCI registers. */ > -struct vpci_register { > - vpci_read_t *read; > - vpci_write_t *write; > - unsigned int size; > - unsigned int offset; > - void *private; > - struct list_head node; > - uint32_t ro_mask; > - uint32_t rw1c_mask; > - uint32_t rsvdp_mask; > - uint32_t rsvdz_mask; > -}; > - > #ifdef __XEN__ > extern vpci_capability_t *const __start_vpci_array[]; > extern vpci_capability_t *const __end_vpci_array[]; > diff --git a/xen/include/xen/vpci.h b/xen/include/xen/vpci.h > index fa13397ae409..19a036c22165 100644 > --- a/xen/include/xen/vpci.h > +++ b/xen/include/xen/vpci.h > @@ -214,6 +214,21 @@ struct vpci_vcpu { > bool rom_only : 1; > }; > > +#define VPCI_CAP_MAX_REGISTER 10 That 10 is kind of arbitrary... Thanks, Roger.
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |