On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 18:11:08 +0200
Auger Eric <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On 6/4/19 12:31 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 May 2019 18:10:01 +0200
> > Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> This patch registers a fault handler which records faults in
> >> a circular buffer and then signals an eventfd. This buffer is
> >> exposed within the fault region.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> v3 -> v4:
> >> - move iommu_unregister_device_fault_handler to vfio_pci_release
> >> ---
> >> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 49
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
> >> | 1 + 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> >> b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c index f75f61127277..520999994ba8
> >> 100644 --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> >> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/vfio.h>
> >> #include <linux/vgaarb.h>
> >> #include <linux/nospec.h>
> >> +#include <linux/circ_buf.h>
> >>
> >> #include "vfio_pci_private.h"
> >>
> >> @@ -296,6 +297,46 @@ static const struct vfio_pci_regops
> >> vfio_pci_fault_prod_regops = { .add_capability =
> >> vfio_pci_fault_prod_add_capability, };
> >>
> >> +int vfio_pci_iommu_dev_fault_handler(struct iommu_fault_event
> >> *evt, void *data) +{
> >> + struct vfio_pci_device *vdev = (struct vfio_pci_device *)
> >> data;
> >> + struct vfio_region_fault_prod *prod_region =
> >> + (struct vfio_region_fault_prod
> >> *)vdev->fault_pages;
> >> + struct vfio_region_fault_cons *cons_region =
> >> + (struct vfio_region_fault_cons
> >> *)(vdev->fault_pages + 2 * PAGE_SIZE);
> >> + struct iommu_fault *new =
> >> + (struct iommu_fault *)(vdev->fault_pages +
> >> prod_region->offset +
> >> + prod_region->prod *
> >> prod_region->entry_size);
> >> + int prod, cons, size;
> >> +
> >> + mutex_lock(&vdev->fault_queue_lock);
> >> +
> >> + if (!vdev->fault_abi)
> >> + goto unlock;
> >> +
> >> + prod = prod_region->prod;
> >> + cons = cons_region->cons;
> >> + size = prod_region->nb_entries;
> >> +
> >> + if (CIRC_SPACE(prod, cons, size) < 1)
> >> + goto unlock;
> >> +
> >> + *new = evt->fault;
> >> + prod = (prod + 1) % size;
> >> + prod_region->prod = prod;
> >> + mutex_unlock(&vdev->fault_queue_lock);
> >> +
> >> + mutex_lock(&vdev->igate);
> >> + if (vdev->dma_fault_trigger)
> >> + eventfd_signal(vdev->dma_fault_trigger, 1);
> >> + mutex_unlock(&vdev->igate);
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> +unlock:
> >> + mutex_unlock(&vdev->fault_queue_lock);
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static int vfio_pci_init_fault_region(struct vfio_pci_device
> >> *vdev) {
> >> struct vfio_region_fault_prod *header;
> >> @@ -328,6 +369,13 @@ static int vfio_pci_init_fault_region(struct
> >> vfio_pci_device *vdev) header = (struct vfio_region_fault_prod
> >> *)vdev->fault_pages; header->version = -1;
> >> header->offset = PAGE_SIZE;
> >> +
> >> + ret =
> >> iommu_register_device_fault_handler(&vdev->pdev->dev,
> >> +
> >> vfio_pci_iommu_dev_fault_handler,
> >> + vdev);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + goto out;
> >> +
> >> return 0;
> >> out:
> >> kfree(vdev->fault_pages);
> >> @@ -570,6 +618,7 @@ static void vfio_pci_release(void *device_data)
> >> if (!(--vdev->refcnt)) {
> >> vfio_spapr_pci_eeh_release(vdev->pdev);
> >> vfio_pci_disable(vdev);
> >> +
> >> iommu_unregister_device_fault_handler(&vdev->pdev->dev);
> >
> >
> > But this can fail if there are pending faults which leaves a device
> > reference and then the system is broken :(
> This series only features unrecoverable errors and for those the
> unregistration cannot fail. Now unrecoverable errors were added I
> admit this is confusing. We need to sort this out or clean the
> dependencies.
As Alex pointed out in 4/29, we can make
iommu_unregister_device_fault_handler() never fail and clean up all the
pending faults in the host IOMMU belong to that device. But the problem
is that if a fault, such as PRQ, has already been injected into the
guest, the page response may come back after handler is unregistered
and registered again. We need a way to reject such page response belong
to the previous life of the handler. Perhaps a sync call to the guest
with your fault queue eventfd? I am not sure.
Jacob
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
