On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:34:30 -0400
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 01:54:58PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 01:09:20PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > On 2024-11-09 5:48 am, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > > To solve this problem the VMM should capture the MSI IOVA allocated by the
> > > > guest kernel and relay it to the GIC driver in the host kernel, to program
> > > > the correct MSI IOVA. And this requires a new ioctl via VFIO.
> > >
> > > Once VFIO has that information from userspace, though, do we really need
> > > the whole complicated dance to push it right down into the irqchip layer
> > > just so it can be passed back up again? AFAICS
> > > vfio_msi_set_vector_signal() via VFIO_DEVICE_SET_IRQS already explicitly
> > > rewrites MSI-X vectors, so it seems like it should be pretty
> > > straightforward to override the message address in general at that
> > > level, without the lower layers having to be aware at all, no?
> >
> > Didn't see that clearly!! It works with a simple following override:
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > @@ -497,6 +497,10 @@ static int vfio_msi_set_vector_signal(struct vfio_pci_core_device *vdev,
> > struct msi_msg msg;
> >
> > get_cached_msi_msg(irq, &msg);
> > + if (vdev->msi_iovas) {
> > + msg.address_lo = lower_32_bits(vdev->msi_iovas[vector]);
> > + msg.address_hi = upper_32_bits(vdev->msi_iovas[vector]);
> > + }
> > pci_write_msi_msg(irq, &msg);
> > }
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > With that, I think we only need one VFIO change for this part :)
>
> Wow, is that really OK from a layering perspective? The comment is
> pretty clear on the intention that this is to resync the irq layer
> view of the device with the physical HW.
>
> Editing the msi_msg while doing that resync smells bad.
>
> Also, this is only doing MSI-X, we should include normal MSI as
> well. (it probably should have a resync too?)
This was added for a specific IBM HBA that clears the vector table
during a built-in self test, so it's possible the MSI table being in
config space never had the same issue, or we just haven't encountered
it. I don't expect anything else actually requires this.
> I'd want Thomas/Marc/Alex to agree.. (please read the cover letter for
> context)
It seems suspect to me too. In a sense it is still just synchronizing
the MSI address, but to a different address space.
Is it possible to do this with the existing write_msi_msg callback on
the msi descriptor? For instance we could simply translate the msg
address and call pci_write_msi_msg() (while avoiding an infinite
recursion). Or maybe there should be an xlate_msi_msg callback we can
register. Or I suppose there might be a way to insert an irqchip that
does the translation on write. Thanks,
Alex
