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

Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] vpci: Hide legacy capability when it fails to initialize



On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 07:03:02AM +0000, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
> On 2025/6/5 21:35, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 05:45:54PM +0800, Jiqian Chen wrote:
> >> When vpci fails to initialize a legacy capability of device, it just
> >> returns an error and vPCI gets disabled for the whole device.  That
> >> most likely renders the device unusable, plus possibly causing issues
> >> to Xen itself if guest attempts to program the native MSI or MSI-X
> >> capabilities if present.
> >>
> >> So, add new function to hide legacy capability when initialization
> >> fails. And remove the failed legacy capability from the vpci emulated
> >> legacy capability list.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jiqian Chen <Jiqian.Chen@xxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> cc: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> v4->v5 changes:
> >> * Modify vpci_get_register() to delete some unnecessary check, so that I 
> >> don't need to move function vpci_register_cmp().
> >> * Rename vpci_capability_mask() to vpci_capability_hide().
> >>
> >> v3->v4 changes:
> >> * Modify the commit message.
> >> * In function vpci_get_previous_cap_register(), add an 
> >> ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() if offset below 0x40.
> >> * Modify vpci_capability_mask() to return error instead of using ASSERT.
> >> * Use vpci_remove_register to remove PCI_CAP_LIST_ID register instead of 
> >> open code.
> >> * Add check "if ( !offset )" in vpci_capability_mask().
> >>
> >> v2->v3 changes:
> >> * Separated from the last version patch "vpci: Hide capability when it 
> >> fails to initialize"
> >> * Whole implementation changed because last version is wrong.
> >>   This version adds a new helper function vpci_get_register() and uses it 
> >> to get
> >>   target handler and previous handler from vpci->handlers, then remove the 
> >> target.
> >>
> >> v1->v2 changes:
> >> * Removed the "priorities" of initializing capabilities since it isn't 
> >> used anymore.
> >> * Added new function vpci_capability_mask() and vpci_ext_capability_mask() 
> >> to
> >>   remove failed capability from list.
> >> * Called vpci_make_msix_hole() in the end of init_msix().
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Jiqian Chen.
> >> ---
> >>  xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c | 117 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>  1 file changed, 113 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c b/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c
> >> index 2861557e06d2..60e7654ec377 100644
> >> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c
> >> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c
> >> @@ -83,6 +83,99 @@ static int assign_virtual_sbdf(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >>  
> >>  #endif /* CONFIG_HAS_VPCI_GUEST_SUPPORT */
> >>  
> >> +static struct vpci_register *vpci_get_register(struct vpci *vpci,
> >> +                                               unsigned int offset,
> >> +                                               unsigned int size)
> >> +{
> >> +    struct vpci_register *rm;
> > 
> > Nit: I think you re-used part of the code from vpci_remove_register()
> > that names the local variable rm (because it's for removal).  Here it
> > would better to just name it 'r' (for register).
> Will change.
> > 
> >> +
> >> +    ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&vpci->lock));
> >> +
> >> +    list_for_each_entry ( rm, &vpci->handlers, node )
> >> +    {
> >> +        if ( rm->offset == offset && rm->size == size )
> >> +            return rm;
> >> +
> >> +        if ( offset <= rm->offset )
> >> +            break;
> >> +    }
> >> +
> >> +    return NULL;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static struct vpci_register *vpci_get_previous_cap_register(
> >> +    struct vpci *vpci, unsigned int offset)
> >> +{
> >> +    uint32_t next;
> >> +    struct vpci_register *r;
> >> +
> >> +    if ( offset < 0x40 )
> >> +    {
> >> +        ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
> >> +        return NULL;
> >> +    }
> >> +
> >> +    r = vpci_get_register(vpci, PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST, 1);
> >> +    if ( !r )
> >> +        return NULL;
> >> +
> >> +    next = (uint32_t)(uintptr_t)r->private;
> >> +    while ( next >= 0x40 && next != offset )
> >> +    {
> >> +        r = vpci_get_register(vpci, next + PCI_CAP_LIST_NEXT, 1);
> >> +        if ( !r )
> >> +            return NULL;
> >> +        next = (uint32_t)(uintptr_t)r->private;
> >> +    }
> >> +
> >> +    if ( next < 0x40 )
> >> +        return NULL;
> > 
> > The code below I think it's a bit simpler (and compact) by having a
> > single return instead of multiple ones:
> > 
> > for ( r = vpci_get_register(vpci, PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST, 1); r;
> >       r = next >= 0x40 ? vpci_get_register(vpci,
> >                                            next + PCI_CAP_LIST_NEXT, 1)
> >                        : NULL )
> > {
> >     next = (uint32_t)(uintptr_t)r->private;
> >     ASSERT(next == (uintptr_t)r->private);
> Why need this ASSERT here?

Extra safety to ensure the value is not truncated (which will indicate
something is off).  I would not argue strongly for it to be added if
you don't think it's needed.

Thanks, Roger.



 


Rackspace

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