Re: [PATCH v1 19/27] xen/riscv: emulate guest writes to virtual APLIC MMIO

[Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/2/26 4:18 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.03.2026 18:08, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/riscv/vaplic.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/vaplic.c
> > @@ -20,6 +20,16 @@
> >   
> >   #include "aplic-priv.h"
> >   
> > +#define APLIC_REG_GET(addr, offset) \
> > +    readl((void *)((vaddr_t)(addr) + offset))
> > +#define APLIC_REG_SET(addr, offset, value) \
> > +    writel(value, (void *)((vaddr_t)(addr) + offset))
> Why is addr properly parenthesized, but offset isn't?
Overlooked that. Will fix.

> > +#define AUTH_IRQ_BIT(irqnum) (auth_irq_bmp[(irqnum) / APLIC_NUM_REGS] & \
> > +                              BIT((irqnum) % APLIC_NUM_REGS, U))
> > +
> > +#define regval_to_irqn(reg_val) ((reg_val) / sizeof(uint32_t))
> I'm trying to make sense of the division here, but I think the main issue
> is with naming: It's not a "register value" which is passed into here, but
> a register index (offset from a range's base register).
register index would be clearer. I will rename s/regval/regindx.
> > @@ -127,6 +137,164 @@ int vaplic_map_device_irqs_to_domain(struct domain *d,
> >       return 0;
> >   }
> >   
> > +static void vaplic_dm_update_target(const unsigned long hart_id, uint32_t *iprio)
> > +{
> > +    *iprio &= APLIC_TARGET_IPRIO_MASK;
> > +    *iprio |= (hart_id << APLIC_TARGET_HART_IDX_SHIFT);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void vaplic_update_target(const struct imsic_config *imsic,
> > +                                 const int guest_id,
> > +                                 const unsigned long hart_id, uint32_t *value)
> > +{
> > +    unsigned long group_index;
> > +    unsigned int hhxw = imsic->group_index_bits;
> > +    unsigned int lhxw = imsic->hart_index_bits;
> > +    unsigned int hhxs = imsic->group_index_shift - IMSIC_MMIO_PAGE_SHIFT * 2;
> > +    unsigned long base_ppn = imsic->msi[hart_id].base_addr >> 
> > IMSIC_MMIO_PAGE_SHIFT;
> > +
> > +    group_index = (base_ppn >> (hhxs + 12)) & (BIT(hhxw, UL) - 1);
> And there's no constant available to make this literal 12 more descriptive?
As it was used in aplic_set_irq_affinity() - IMSIC_MMIO_PAGE_SHIFT could 
be used here.
> > +    *value &= APLIC_TARGET_EIID_MASK;
> > +    *value |= guest_id << APLIC_TARGET_GUEST_IDX_SHIFT;
> > +    *value |= hart_id << APLIC_TARGET_HART_IDX_SHIFT;
> > +    *value |= group_index << (lhxw + APLIC_TARGET_HART_IDX_SHIFT) ;
> > +}
> Both functions returning void right now, why would they need to return their
> result via indirection?
No specific reason. Do you think it would be better just to return value 
instead? I am okay to rework that.
> > +#define CALC_REG_VALUE(base) \
> > +{ \
> > +    uint32_t index; \
> > +    uint32_t tmp_val; \
> Combine these two, or have the variables have initializers?
>
> > +    index = regval_to_irqn(offset - base); \
> There's no "offset" declared or passed into here, nor ...
>
> > +    tmp_val = APLIC_REG_GET(priv->regs, aplic_addr) & ~auth_irq_bmp[index]; \
> ... "priv", nor ...
>
> > +    value &= auth_irq_bmp[index]; \
> > +    value |= tmp_val; \
> ... "value". It may remain like this, but then it wants putting inside the
> sole function that uses it, and be #undef-ed at the end of the function.
>
> > +}
> Please wrap in do/while(0), for use sites to be required to have semicolons
> (and hence look like normal statements). Or make it a statement expression
> properly returning the calculated value.
I will put the following inside the function + undef at the end:

#define CALC_REG_VALUE(base) do {                               \ 
                                  \
    uint32_t index = regindx_to_irqn(offset - (base));          \
    uint32_t tmp_val = APLIC_REG_GET(priv->regs, aplic_addr) &  \
                       ~auth_irq_bmp[index];                    \
    value &= auth_irq_bmp[index];                               \
    value |= tmp_val;                                           \
} while ( 0 )

> > +static int cf_check vaplic_emulate_store(const struct vcpu *vcpu,
> > +                                         unsigned long addr, uint32_t value)
> > +{
> > +    struct vaplic *vaplic = to_vaplic(vcpu->domain->arch.vintc);
> > +    struct aplic_priv *priv = vaplic->base.info->private;
> > +    uint32_t offset = addr & APLIC_REG_OFFSET_MASK;
> See ./CODING_STYLE as to uses of fixed-width types.
>
> > +    unsigned long aplic_addr = addr - priv->paddr_start;
> > +    const uint32_t *auth_irq_bmp = vcpu->domain->arch.vintc->private;
> > +
> > +    switch ( offset )
> > +    {
> > +    case APLIC_SETIP_BASE ... APLIC_SETIP_LAST:
> And (taking this just as example) any misaligned accesses falling in this range
> are fine?
Do you mean something like 0x1C02 instead of 0x1C00 or 0x1C04? If yes, 
then I don't think. I will add the following between switch():
    if ( offset & 3 )
    {
        gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "Misaligned APLIC access at offset %#x\n",
                 offset);
        return -EINVAL;
    }

> > +        CALC_REG_VALUE(APLIC_SETIP_BASE);
> > +        break;
> > +
> > +    case APLIC_CLRIP_BASE ... APLIC_CLRIP_LAST:
> > +        CALC_REG_VALUE(APLIC_CLRIP_BASE);
> > +        break;
> > +
> > +    case APLIC_SETIE_BASE ... APLIC_SETIE_LAST:
> > +        CALC_REG_VALUE(APLIC_SETIE_BASE);
> > +        break;
> > +
> > +    case APLIC_CLRIE_BASE ... APLIC_CLRIE_LAST:
> > +        CALC_REG_VALUE(APLIC_CLRIE_BASE);
> > +        break;
> > +
> > +    case APLIC_SOURCECFG_BASE ... APLIC_SOURCECFG_LAST:
> > +        /* We don't suppert delagation, so bit10 if sourcecfg should be 0 */
> > +        ASSERT(!(value & BIT(10, U)));
> And that bit doesn't have a proper #define?
No, at the moment, I will add:
 #define APLIC_SOURCECFG_D   BIT(10, U) to aplic.h.
> > +        /*
> > +         * As sourcecfg register starts from 1:
> > +         *   0x0000 domaincfg
> > +         *   0x0004 sourcecfg[1]
> > +         *   0x0008 sourcecfg[2]
> > +         *    ...
> > +         *   0x0FFC sourcecfg[1023]
> > +         * It is necessary to calculate an interrupt number by substracting
> Nit: subtracting
>
> > +         * of APLIC_DOMAINCFG instead of APLIC_SOURCECFG_BASE.
> > +         */
> > +        if ( !AUTH_IRQ_BIT(regval_to_irqn(offset - APLIC_DOMAINCFG)) )
> > +            /* interrupt not enabled, ignore it */
> Throughout the series: Please adhere to ./CODING_STYLE.
>
> > +            return 0;
> > +
> > +        break;
> And any value is okay to write?
No, it should be in a range 
[APLIC_SOURCECFG_SM_INACTIVE,APLIC_SOURCECFG_SM_LEVEL_LOW].
I will add the check before break:
        if ( value > APLIC_SOURCECFG_SM_LEVEL_LOW )
        {
            gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING,
                     "value(%u) is incorrect for sourcecfg register\n", 
value);
            value = APLIC_SOURCECFG_SM_INACTIVE;
        }

> > +    case APLIC_TARGET_BASE ... APLIC_TARGET_LAST:
> > +        struct vcpu *target_vcpu = NULL;
> > +
> > +        /*
> > +         * Look at vaplic_emulate_load() for explanation why
> > +         * APLIC_GENMSI is substracted.
> > +         */
> There's no vaplic_emulate_load() - how can I go look there?
It is introduced in the next patch.

> Also same typo again as above.
>
> > +        if ( !AUTH_IRQ_BIT(regval_to_irqn(offset - APLIC_GENMSI)) )
> > +            /* interrupt not enabled, ignore it */
> > +            return 0;
> > +
> > +        for ( int i = 0; i < vcpu->domain->max_vcpus; i++ )
> unsigned int
>
> > +        {
> > +            struct vcpu *v = vcpu->domain->vcpu[i];
> > +
> > +            if ( v->vcpu_id == (value >> APLIC_TARGET_HART_IDX_SHIFT) )
> > +            {
> > +                target_vcpu = v;
> > +                break;
> > +            }
> > +        }
> > +
> > +        ASSERT(target_vcpu);
> What guarantees the pointer to be non-NULL? The incoming value can be
> arbitrary, afaict.
I didn't understand your point. It is just checking that target_vcpu has 
been found. If after for() loop the value of target_vcpu is still NULL 
then something wrong in Xen.
> > +        if ( !(vaplic->regs.domaincfg & APLIC_DOMAINCFG_DM) )
> > +        {
> > +            vaplic_dm_update_target(cpuid_to_hartid(target_vcpu->processor),
> > +                                    &value);
> > +        }
> > +        else
> > +            vaplic_update_target(priv->imsic_cfg,
> > +                                 vcpu_guest_file_id(target_vcpu),
> > +                                 cpuid_to_hartid(target_vcpu->processor),
> > +                                 &value);
> I'm struggling with the naming here: When DM is clear, a function with "dm"
> in the name is called.
it means direct (delivery) mode. Maybe it is better to put dm at the end 
of the function name? Or it is just better to change it to something else?
> For the latter one, unless other uses are intended speaking against that,
> instead of the middle two arguments simply pass target_vcpu?
Good point. I will update the function accordingly.

> Also please omit the braces consistently from both branches.
>
> > +        break;
> > +
> > +    case APLIC_SETIPNUM:
> > +    case APLIC_SETIPNUM_LE:
> What about APLIC_SETIPNUM_BE?
>
> > +    case APLIC_CLRIPNUM:
> > +    case APLIC_SETIENUM:
> > +    case APLIC_CLRIENUM:
> > +        if ( AUTH_IRQ_BIT(value) )
> > +            break;
> Aren't you easily overrunning auth_irq_bmp[] here?
It makes sense to add instead:
        if ( !value || value >= APLIC_NUM_REGS * APLIC_NUM_REGS ||
             !AUTH_IRQ_BIT(value) )
            return 0;
        break;

> > +        return 0;
> > +
> > +    case APLIC_DOMAINCFG:
> > +        /*
> > +         * TODO:
> > +         * The domaincfg register has this format:
> > +         * bits 31:24 read-only 0x80
> > +         * bit 8      IE
> > +         * bit 7      read-only 0
> > +         * bit 2      DM (WARL)
> > +         * bit 0      BE (WARL)
> > +         *
> > +         * The most interesting bit for us is IE(Interrupt Enable) bit.
> > +         * At the moment, at least, Linux doesn't use domaincfg.IE bit to
> > +         * disable interrupts globally, but if one day someone will use it
> > +         * then extra actions should be done.
> > +         */
> > +
> > +        printk_once("%s: Nothing to do, domaincfg is set by aplic during "
> > +                    "initialization in Xen\n", __func__);
> As per the comment it's not "nothing to do", but your choice to ignore writes
> even if they may be relevant.
I will change "Nothing to do" to "Ignore writes to".

> > +        return 0;
> > +
> > +    default:
> > +        panic("%s: unsupported register offset: %#x\n", __func__, offset);
> Crashing the host for the guest doing something odd? It's odd that the function
> only ever returns 0 anyway - it could simply return an error here (if the
> itention is to not ignore such writes).
But maybe it is a legal offset and we really want to support it?

Even if I will return just error then a caller site will want to do 
something with this error -> for example, kill domain or panic() again. 
Maybe panic is to much and just domain should be crashed here:
default:
    gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING,
             "Unhandled APLIC write at offset %#x (value %#x)\n",
             offset, value);
    domain_crash(vcpu->domain);
    return 0;
?

> As it's not clear what values other than zero such a function may return, I
> also can't comment on its (and the hook's) return type (may want to be bool
> instead of int).
Maybe, it makes sense to switch to bool. As I mentioned above I'm 
returning -EINVAL in some cases. But it could be really just return 1 
instead. Here:
    if ( offset & 3 )
    {
        gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "Misaligned APLIC access at offset %#x\n",
                 offset);
        return -EINVAL;
    }

Thanks.

~ Oleksii