[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] vpci: Hide capability when it fails to initialize
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 09:32:02AM +0000, Chen, Jiqian wrote: > On 2025/3/31 16:43, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 07:26:20AM +0000, Chen, Jiqian wrote: > >> On 2025/3/27 17:25, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 03:32:12PM +0800, Jiqian Chen wrote: > >>>> #endif /* CONFIG_HAS_VPCI_GUEST_SUPPORT */ > >>>> > >>>> +static int vpci_init_cap_with_priority(struct pci_dev *pdev, > >>>> + const char *priority) > >>>> +{ > >>>> + for ( unsigned int i = 0; i < NUM_VPCI_INIT; i++ ) > >>>> + { > >>>> + const vpci_capability_t *capability = __start_vpci_array[i]; > >>>> + const unsigned int cap_id = capability->id; > >>>> + unsigned int pos; > >>>> + int rc; > >>>> + > >>>> + if ( *(capability->priority) != *priority ) > >>>> + continue; > >>>> + > >>>> + if ( !capability->is_ext ) > >>>> + pos = pci_find_cap_offset(pdev->sbdf, cap_id); > >>>> + else > >>>> + pos = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev->sbdf, cap_id); > >>>> + > >>>> + if ( !pos ) > >>>> + continue; > >>>> + > >>>> + rc = capability->init(pdev); > >>>> + > >>>> + if ( rc ) > >>>> + { > >>>> + printk(XENLOG_WARNING "%pd %pp: cap init fail rc=%d, try to > >>>> hide\n", > >>>> + pdev->domain, &pdev->sbdf, rc); > >>>> + rc = vpci_add_register(pdev->vpci, vpci_read_val, NULL, > >>>> + pos, capability->is_ext ? 4 : 1, > >>>> NULL); > >>> > >>> Are you sure this works as intended? > >> Yes, I used failure test cases of init_msi/rebar. > >> From the "lspci" result, they were hided from the dom0. > >> But I forgot to test for domUs. > > > > I assume that's only tested with Linux? See my comment below about > > capability ID 0 being reserved, and hence I think we should not keep > > capabilities with ID 0 on the list, as it might cause malfunctions to > > OSes. > > > >>> The capability ID 0 is marked as "reserved" in the spec, so it's unclear > >>> to me how OSes would handle > >>> finding such capability on the list - I won't be surprised if some > >>> implementations decide to terminate the walk. It's fine to mask the > >>> capability ID for the ones that we don't want to expose, but there's > >>> further work to do IMO. > >>> > >>> The usual way to deal with masking capabilities is to short circuit > >>> the capability from the linked list, by making the previous capability > >>> "Next Capability Offset" point to the next capability in the list, > >>> thus skipping the current one. So: > >>> > >>> capability[n - 1].next_cap = capability[n].next_cap > >>> > >>> IOW: you will need to add the handler to the previous capability on > >>> the list. That's how it's already done in init_header(). > >> Oh, I got your opinion. > >> But we may need to discuss this more. > >> In my opinion, there should be two situations: > >> First, if device belongs to hardware domain, there is no emulation of > >> legacy or extended capabilities linked list if I understand codes right. > > > > Yes, but that needs to be fixed, we need to have this kind of > > emulation uniformly. > > > >> So, for this situation, I think current implementation of my patch is > >> enough for hiding legacy or extended capabilities. > > > > It works given the current code in Linux. As said above, I don't > > think this is fully correct according to the PCI spec. > > > >> Second, if device belongs to common domain, we just need to consider > >> legacy capabilities since all extended capabilities are hided in > >> init_header(). > >> So, for this situation, I need to what you said " capability[n - > >> 1].next_cap = capability[n].next_cap " > > > > I'm not sure why would want to handle the hardware domain vs > > unprivileged domains differently here. The way to hide the > > capabilities should always be the same, like it's currently done for > > domUs. > So, I need to refactor the emulating PCI capability list codes of > init_header() to serve > for all domain(dom0+domUs) firstly, since current codes only emulate PCI > capability list for domUs, right? Yes, that would be my understanding. The current logic in init_header() needs to be expanded/generalized so it can be used for masking random PCI capabilities, plus adapted to work with PCIe capabilities also. > > > >> I am not sure if above are right. > >>> > >>>> + if ( rc ) > >>>> + { > >>>> + printk(XENLOG_ERR "%pd %pp: fail to hide cap rc=%d\n", > >>>> + pdev->domain, &pdev->sbdf, rc); > >>>> + return rc; > >>>> + } > >>>> + } > >>>> + } > >>>> + > >>>> + return 0; > >>>> +} > >>>> + > >>>> void vpci_deassign_device(struct pci_dev *pdev) > >>>> { > >>>> unsigned int i; > >>>> @@ -128,7 +169,6 @@ void vpci_deassign_device(struct pci_dev *pdev) > >>>> > >>>> int vpci_assign_device(struct pci_dev *pdev) > >>>> { > >>>> - unsigned int i; > >>>> const unsigned long *ro_map; > >>>> int rc = 0; > >>>> > >>>> @@ -159,12 +199,19 @@ int vpci_assign_device(struct pci_dev *pdev) > >>>> goto out; > >>>> #endif > >>>> > >>>> - for ( i = 0; i < NUM_VPCI_INIT; i++ ) > >>>> - { > >>>> - rc = __start_vpci_array[i](pdev); > >>>> - if ( rc ) > >>>> - break; > >>>> - } > >>>> + /* > >>>> + * Capabilities with high priority like MSI-X need to > >>>> + * be initialized before header > >>>> + */ > >>>> + rc = vpci_init_cap_with_priority(pdev, VPCI_PRIORITY_HIGH); > >>>> + if ( rc ) > >>>> + goto out; > >>> > >>> I understand this is not introduced by this change, but I wonder if > >>> there could be a way to ditch the priority stuff for capabilities, > >>> specially now that we only have two "priorities": before or after PCI > >>> header initialization. > >> I have an idea, but it seems like a hake. > >> Can we add a flag(maybe name it "msix_initialized") to struct vpci{}? > >> Then in vpci_make_msix_hole(), we can first check that flag, if it is > >> false, we return an error to let modify_decoding() directly return in the > >> process of init_header. > >> And in the start of init_msix(), to set msix_initialized=true, in the end > >> of init_msix(), to call modify_decoding() to setup p2m. > >> Then we can remove the priorities. > > > > Maybe the initialization of the MSI-X capability could be done after > > the header, and call vpci_make_msix_hole()? There's a bit of > > redundancy here in that the BAR is first fully mapped, and then a hole > > is punched in place of the MSI-X related tables. Seems like the > > easier option to break the depedency of init_msix() in being called > > ahead of init_header(). > You mean the sequence should be: > vpci_init_header() > vpci_init_capability() // all capabilities > vpci_make_msix_hole() > > Right? Yes, I think that would be my preference. The call to vpci_make_msix_hole() should be inside of init_msix(). Thanks, Roger.
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |