On 9/30/2022 5:17 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:56:33PM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
Gunyah provides a console for each VM using the VM console resource
manager APIs. This driver allows console data from other
VMs to be accessed via a TTY device and exports a console device to dump
Linux's own logs to our console.
Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
MAINTAINERS | 1 +
drivers/tty/Kconfig | 8 +
drivers/tty/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/tty/gunyah_tty.c | 409 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 419 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 drivers/tty/gunyah_tty.c
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index a0cba618e5f6..e8d4a6d9491a 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -8890,6 +8890,7 @@ F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/gunyah-hypervisor.yaml
F: Documentation/virt/gunyah/
F: arch/arm64/gunyah/
F: drivers/mailbox/gunyah-msgq.c
+F: drivers/tty/gunyah_tty.c
F: drivers/virt/gunyah/
F: include/asm-generic/gunyah.h
F: include/linux/gunyah*.h
diff --git a/drivers/tty/Kconfig b/drivers/tty/Kconfig
index cc30ff93e2e4..ff86e977f9ac 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/tty/Kconfig
@@ -380,6 +380,14 @@ config RPMSG_TTY
To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module will be
called rpmsg_tty.
+config GUNYAH_CONSOLE
+ tristate "Gunyah Consoles"
+ depends on GUNYAH
+ help
+ This enables support for console output using Gunyah's Resource Manager RPC.
+ This is normally used when a secondary VM which does not have exclusive access
+ to a real or virtualized serial device and virtio-console is unavailable.
module name?
+
endif # TTY
source "drivers/tty/serdev/Kconfig"
diff --git a/drivers/tty/Makefile b/drivers/tty/Makefile
index 07aca5184a55..d183fbfd835b 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/tty/Makefile
@@ -27,5 +27,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_GOLDFISH_TTY) += goldfish.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MIPS_EJTAG_FDC_TTY) += mips_ejtag_fdc.o
obj-$(CONFIG_VCC) += vcc.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RPMSG_TTY) += rpmsg_tty.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_GUNYAH_CONSOLE) += gunyah_tty.o
obj-y += ipwireless/
diff --git a/drivers/tty/gunyah_tty.c b/drivers/tty/gunyah_tty.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..80a20da11ad0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/tty/gunyah_tty.c
@@ -0,0 +1,409 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2022 Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
+ */
+
+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "gh_rsc_mgr_console: " fmt
You are a driver, use dev_printk() functions, no need for pr_fmt() at
all, right?
+
+#include <linux/gunyah_rsc_mgr.h>
+#include <linux/auxiliary_bus.h>
+#include <linux/workqueue.h>
+#include <linux/spinlock.h>
+#include <linux/tty_flip.h>
+#include <linux/console.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/kfifo.h>
+#include <linux/kref.h>
+#include <linux/slab.h>
+#include <linux/tty.h>
+
+/*
+ * The Linux TTY code does not support dynamic addition of tty derived devices so we need to know
+ * how many tty devices we might need when space is allocated for the tty device. Since VMs might be
+ * added/removed dynamically, we need to make sure we have enough allocated.
Wrap comments at 80 columns please.
+ */
+#define RSC_MGR_TTY_ADAPTERS 16
We can have dynamic tty devices, so I don't understand this comment.
What really is the problem here?
Yes, I see the confusion. Dynamic device addition of tty devices is
supported. As I understand, you need to know the maximum number of lines
that could be added, and that is limitation I was referring to.
Is this comment better?
The Linux TTY code requires us to know ahead of time how many lines we
might need. Each line here corresponds to a VM. 16 seems like a
reasonable number of lines for systems that are running Gunyah and using
the provided console interface.
+
+/* # of payload bytes that can fit in a 1-fragment CONSOLE_WRITE message */
+#define RM_CONS_WRITE_MSG_SIZE ((1 * (GH_MSGQ_MAX_MSG_SIZE - 8)) - 4)
+
+struct rm_cons_port {
+ struct tty_port port;
+ u16 vmid;
+ bool open;
Why do you care if it is open or not?
I can clean it out.
+ unsigned int index;
+
+ DECLARE_KFIFO(put_fifo, char, 1024);
+ spinlock_t fifo_lock;
+ struct work_struct put_work;
+
+ struct rm_cons_data *cons_data;
+};
+
+struct rm_cons_data {
+ struct tty_driver *tty_driver;
+ struct device *dev;
+
+ spinlock_t ports_lock;
+ struct rm_cons_port *ports[RSC_MGR_TTY_ADAPTERS];
+
+ struct notifier_block rsc_mgr_notif;
+ struct console console;
+};
+
+static void put_work_fn(struct work_struct *ws)
+{
+ char buf[RM_CONS_WRITE_MSG_SIZE];
+ int count, ret;
+ struct rm_cons_port *port = container_of(ws, struct rm_cons_port, put_work);
+
+ while (!kfifo_is_empty(&port->put_fifo)) {
+ count = kfifo_out_spinlocked(&port->put_fifo, buf, sizeof(buf), &port->fifo_lock);
+ if (count <= 0)
+ continue;
+
+ ret = gh_rm_console_write(port->vmid, buf, count);
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_warn_once("failed to send characters: %d\n", ret);
What will this warning help with?
+ break;
If an error happens, shouldn't you keep trying to send the rest of the
data?
I'll update to retry on anything but ENOMEM.
+ }
+ }
+}
+
+static int rsc_mgr_console_notif(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long cmd, void *data)
+{
+ int count, i;
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = NULL;
+ struct tty_port *tty_port = NULL;
+ struct rm_cons_data *cons_data = container_of(nb, struct rm_cons_data, rsc_mgr_notif);
+ const struct gh_rm_notification *notif = data;
+ struct gh_rm_notif_vm_console_chars const * const msg = notif->buff;
+
+ if (cmd != GH_RM_NOTIF_VM_CONSOLE_CHARS ||
+ notif->size < sizeof(*msg))
+ return NOTIFY_DONE;
+
+ spin_lock(&cons_data->ports_lock);
+ for (i = 0; i < RSC_MGR_TTY_ADAPTERS; i++) {
+ if (!cons_data->ports[i])
+ continue;
+ if (cons_data->ports[i]->vmid == msg->vmid) {
+ rm_port = cons_data->ports[i];
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ if (rm_port)
+ tty_port = tty_port_get(&rm_port->port);
+ spin_unlock(&cons_data->ports_lock);
+
+ if (!rm_port)
+ pr_warn("Received unexpected console characters for VMID %u\n", msg->vmid);
+ if (!tty_port)
+ return NOTIFY_DONE;
+
+ count = tty_buffer_request_room(tty_port, msg->num_bytes);
+ tty_insert_flip_string(tty_port, msg->bytes, count);
+ tty_flip_buffer_push(tty_port);
+
+ tty_port_put(tty_port);
+ return NOTIFY_OK;
+}
+
+static ssize_t vmid_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
+{
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+
+ if (rm_port->vmid == GH_VMID_SELF)
+ return sysfs_emit(buf, "self\n");
+
+ return sysfs_emit(buf, "%u\n", rm_port->vmid);
You didn't document this sysfs file, why not?
And tty drivers should not have random sysfs files, please don't add
this.
Removed
+}
+
+static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(vmid);
+
+static struct attribute *rsc_mgr_tty_dev_attrs[] = {
+ &dev_attr_vmid.attr,
+ NULL
+};
+
+static const struct attribute_group rsc_mgr_tty_dev_attr_group = {
+ .attrs = rsc_mgr_tty_dev_attrs,
+};
+
+static const struct attribute_group *rsc_mgr_tty_dev_attr_groups[] = {
+ &rsc_mgr_tty_dev_attr_group,
+ NULL
+};
+
+static int rsc_mgr_tty_open(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *filp)
+{
+ int ret;
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = dev_get_drvdata(tty->dev);
+
+ if (!rm_port->open) {
Why are you caring if the port is open already or not?
+ ret = gh_rm_console_open(rm_port->vmid);
Can't this just be called for every open()?
And what happens if this changes right after it is checked?
I've moved the open/close callbacks to the activate/shutdown
tty_port_operations.
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_err("Failed to open RM console for vmid %x: %d\n", rm_port->vmid, ret);
dev_err()
+ return ret;
+ }
+ rm_port->open = true;
+ }
+
+ return tty_port_open(&rm_port->port, tty, filp);
+}
+
+static void rsc_mgr_tty_close(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *filp)
+{
+ int ret;
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = dev_get_drvdata(tty->dev);
+
+ if (rm_port->open) {
+ if (rm_port->vmid != GH_VMID_SELF) {
+ ret = gh_rm_console_close(rm_port->vmid);
+ if (ret)
+ pr_warn("Failed to close RM console for vmid %d: %d\n",
+ rm_port->vmid, ret);
+ }
+ rm_port->open = false;
So if you had multiple open/close this would close the console the first
close call, but not the second?
Are you sure you tested this out properly?
+
+ tty_port_close(&rm_port->port, tty, filp);
+ }
+
+}
+
+static int rsc_mgr_tty_write(struct tty_struct *tty, const unsigned char *buf, int count)
+{
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = dev_get_drvdata(tty->dev);
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = kfifo_in_spinlocked(&rm_port->put_fifo, buf, count, &rm_port->fifo_lock);
+ if (ret > 0)
+ schedule_work(&rm_port->put_work);
Why not just do the write here? Why is a work queue needed?
The gh_rm_console_* calls will sleep. console_write can be called in an
atomic context, so I put the characters on FIFO. I'll update so that
FIFO only used for console.
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static unsigned int rsc_mgr_mgr_tty_write_room(struct tty_struct *tty)
+{
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = dev_get_drvdata(tty->dev);
+
+ return kfifo_avail(&rm_port->put_fifo);
+}
+
+static void rsc_mgr_console_write(struct console *co, const char *buf, unsigned count)
+{
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = co->data;
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = kfifo_in_spinlocked(&rm_port->put_fifo, buf, count, &rm_port->fifo_lock);
+ if (ret > 0)
+ schedule_work(&rm_port->put_work);
Same here, why not just send the data now?
+}
+
+static struct tty_driver *rsc_mgr_console_device(struct console *co, int *index)
+{
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = co->data;
+
+ *index = rm_port->index;
+ return rm_port->port.tty->driver;
Love the locking :(
+}
+
+static int rsc_mgr_console_setup(struct console *co, char *unused)
+{
+ int ret;
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = co->data;
+
+ if (!rm_port->open) {
+ ret = gh_rm_console_open(rm_port->vmid);
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_err("Failed to open RM console for vmid %x: %d\n", rm_port->vmid, ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+ rm_port->open = true;
Again, don't mess with open/close.
In general, is it acceptable to use tty_port(_set)_initialized in the
console_setup/console_exit?
static int rsc_mgr_console_setup(struct console *co, char *unused)
{
struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = co->data;
int ret;
if (!tty_port_get(&rm_port->port))
return -ENODEV;
mutex_lock(&rm_port->port.mutex);
if (!tty_port_initialized(&rm_port->port)) {
ret = gh_rm_console_open(rm_port->vmid);
if (ret) {
dev_err(rm_port->port.tty->dev, "Failed to open %s%d: %d\n",
co->name, rm_port->index, ret);
goto err;
}
tty_port_set_initialized(&rm_port->port, true);
}
rm_port->port.console = true;
mutex_unlock(&rm_port->port.mutex);
return 0;
err:
mutex_unlock(&rm_port->port.mutex);
tty_port_put(&rm_port->port);
return ret;
}
static int rsc_mgr_console_exit(struct console *co)
{
int ret;
struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = co->data;
mutex_lock(&rm_port->port.mutex);
rm_port->port.console = false;
if (!tty_port_active(&rm_port->port)) {
ret = gh_rm_console_close(rm_port->vmid);
if (ret)
dev_err(rm_port->port.tty->dev, "Failed to close %s%d: %d\n",
co->name, rm_port->index, ret);
tty_port_set_initialized(&rm_port->port, false);
}
mutex_unlock(&rm_port->port.mutex);
tty_port_put(&rm_port->port);
return 0;
}
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int rsc_mgr_console_exit(struct console *co)
+{
+ int ret;
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = co->data;
+
+ if (rm_port->open) {
+ ret = gh_rm_console_close(rm_port->vmid);
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_err("Failed to close RM console for vmid %x: %d\n", rm_port->vmid, ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+ rm_port->open = false;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static const struct tty_operations rsc_mgr_tty_ops = {
+ .open = rsc_mgr_tty_open,
+ .close = rsc_mgr_tty_close,
+ .write = rsc_mgr_tty_write,
+ .write_room = rsc_mgr_mgr_tty_write_room,
+};
+
+static void rsc_mgr_port_destruct(struct tty_port *port)
+{
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port = container_of(port, struct rm_cons_port, port);
+ struct rm_cons_data *cons_data = rm_port->cons_data;
+
+ spin_lock(&cons_data->ports_lock);
+ WARN_ON(cons_data->ports[rm_port->index] != rm_port);
Does this mean you just crashed the system if something went wrong?
How can this ever happen?
This can't happen and was added defensively. Will drop.
+ cons_data->ports[rm_port->index] = NULL;
+ spin_unlock(&cons_data->ports_lock);
+ kfree(rm_port);
+}
+
+static const struct tty_port_operations rsc_mgr_port_ops = {
+ .destruct = rsc_mgr_port_destruct,
+};
+
+static struct rm_cons_port *rsc_mgr_port_create(struct rm_cons_data *cons_data, u16 vmid)
+{
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port;
+ struct device *ttydev;
+ unsigned int index;
+ int ret;
+
+ rm_port = kzalloc(sizeof(*rm_port), GFP_KERNEL);
+ rm_port->vmid = vmid;
+ INIT_KFIFO(rm_port->put_fifo);
+ spin_lock_init(&rm_port->fifo_lock);
+ INIT_WORK(&rm_port->put_work, put_work_fn);
+ tty_port_init(&rm_port->port);
+ rm_port->port.ops = &rsc_mgr_port_ops;
+
+ spin_lock(&cons_data->ports_lock);
+ for (index = 0; index < RSC_MGR_TTY_ADAPTERS; index++) {
+ if (!cons_data->ports[index]) {
+ cons_data->ports[index] = rm_port;
+ rm_port->index = index;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&cons_data->ports_lock);
+ if (index >= RSC_MGR_TTY_ADAPTERS) {
+ ret = -ENOSPC;
+ goto err_put_port;
+ }
+
+ ttydev = tty_port_register_device_attr(&rm_port->port, cons_data->tty_driver, index,
+ cons_data->dev, rm_port, rsc_mgr_tty_dev_attr_groups);
+ if (IS_ERR(ttydev)) {
+ ret = PTR_ERR(ttydev);
+ goto err_put_port;
+ }
+
+ return rm_port;
+err_put_port:
+ tty_port_put(&rm_port->port);
+ return ERR_PTR(ret);
+}
+
+static int rsc_mgr_console_probe(struct auxiliary_device *auxdev,
+ const struct auxiliary_device_id *aux_dev_id)
+{
+ struct rm_cons_data *cons_data;
+ struct rm_cons_port *rm_port;
+ int ret;
+ u16 vmid;
+
+ cons_data = devm_kzalloc(&auxdev->dev, sizeof(*cons_data), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!cons_data)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ dev_set_drvdata(&auxdev->dev, cons_data);
+ cons_data->dev = &auxdev->dev;
+
+ cons_data->tty_driver = tty_alloc_driver(RSC_MGR_TTY_ADAPTERS,
+ TTY_DRIVER_REAL_RAW | TTY_DRIVER_DYNAMIC_DEV);
+ if (IS_ERR(cons_data->tty_driver))
+ return PTR_ERR(cons_data->tty_driver);
+
+ cons_data->tty_driver->driver_name = "gh";
+ cons_data->tty_driver->name = "ttyGH";
Where did you pick this name from?
Where is it documented?
"GH" is the shorthand we've been using for "Gunyah". I didn't find
documentation for dynamically assigned char devices, but if it exists, I
can add entry for ttyGH.
+ cons_data->tty_driver->type = TTY_DRIVER_TYPE_SYSTEM;
+ cons_data->tty_driver->init_termios = tty_std_termios;
+ tty_set_operations(cons_data->tty_driver, &rsc_mgr_tty_ops);
+
+ ret = tty_register_driver(cons_data->tty_driver);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(&auxdev->dev, "Could not register tty driver: %d\n", ret);
+ goto err_put_tty;
+ }
+
+ spin_lock_init(&cons_data->ports_lock);
+
+ cons_data->rsc_mgr_notif.notifier_call = rsc_mgr_console_notif;
+ ret = gh_rm_register_notifier(&cons_data->rsc_mgr_notif);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(&auxdev->dev, "Could not register for resource manager notifications: %d\n",
+ ret);
+ goto err_put_tty;
+ }
+
+ rm_port = rsc_mgr_port_create(cons_data, GH_VMID_SELF);
+ if (IS_ERR(rm_port)) {
+ ret = PTR_ERR(rm_port);
+ dev_err(&auxdev->dev, "Could not create own console: %d\n", ret);
+ goto err_unreg_notif;
+ }
+
+ strncpy(cons_data->console.name, "ttyGH", sizeof(cons_data->console.name));
Again, where did this name come from?
thanks,
greg k-h
