On Fri, 1 Dec 2023, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 07:15:17PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2023, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 07:53:59PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Jiqian Chen wrote:
> > > > > This patch is to solve two problems we encountered when we try to
> > > > > passthrough a device to hvm domU base on Xen PVH dom0.
> > > > >
> > > > > First, hvm guest will alloc a pirq and irq for a passthrough device
> > > > > by using gsi, before that, the gsi must first has a mapping in dom0,
> > > > > see Xen code pci_add_dm_done->xc_domain_irq_permission, it will call
> > > > > into Xen and check whether dom0 has the mapping. See
> > > > > XEN_DOMCTL_irq_permission->pirq_access_permitted, "current" is PVH
> > > > > dom0 and it return irq is 0, and then return -EPERM.
> > > > > This is because the passthrough device doesn't do PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq
> > > > > when thay are enabled.
> > > > >
> > > > > Second, in PVH dom0, the gsi of a passthrough device doesn't get
> > > > > registered, but gsi must be configured for it to be able to be
> > > > > mapped into a domU.
> > > > >
> > > > > After searching codes, we can find map_pirq and register_gsi will be
> > > > > done in function vioapic_write_redirent->vioapic_hwdom_map_gsi when
> > > > > the gsi(aka ioapic's pin) is unmasked in PVH dom0. So the problems
> > > > > can be conclude to that the gsi of a passthrough device doesn't be
> > > > > unmasked.
> > > > >
> > > > > To solve the unmaske problem, this patch call the unmask_irq when we
> > > > > assign a device to be passthrough. So that the gsi can get registered
> > > > > and mapped in PVH dom0.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Roger, this seems to be more of a Xen issue than a Linux issue. Why do
> > > > we need the unmask check in Xen? Couldn't we just do:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
> > > > index 4e40d3609a..df262a4a18 100644
> > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
> > > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
> > > > @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static void vioapic_write_redirent(
> > > > hvm_dpci_eoi(d, gsi);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - if ( is_hardware_domain(d) && unmasked )
> > > > + if ( is_hardware_domain(d) )
> > > > {
> > > > /*
> > > > * NB: don't call vioapic_hwdom_map_gsi while holding hvm.irq_lock
> > >
> > > There are some issues with this approach.
> > >
> > > mp_register_gsi() will only setup the trigger and polarity of the
> > > IO-APIC pin once, so we do so once the guest unmask the pin in order
> > > to assert that the configuration is the intended one. A guest is
> > > allowed to write all kind of nonsense stuff to the IO-APIC RTE, but
> > > that doesn't take effect unless the pin is unmasked.
> > >
> > > Overall the question would be whether we have any guarantees that
> > > the hardware domain has properly configured the pin, even if it's not
> > > using it itself (as it hasn't been unmasked).
> > >
> > > IIRC PCI legacy interrupts are level triggered and low polarity, so we
> > > could configure any pins that are not setup at bind time?
> >
> > That could work.
> >
> > Another idea is to move only the call to allocate_and_map_gsi_pirq at
> > bind time? That might be enough to pass a pirq_access_permitted check.
>
> Maybe, albeit that would change the behavior of XEN_DOMCTL_bind_pt_irq
> just for PT_IRQ_TYPE_PCI and only when called from a PVH dom0 (as the
> parameter would be a GSI instead of a previously mapped IRQ). Such
> difference just for PT_IRQ_TYPE_PCI is slightly weird - if we go that
> route I would recommend that we instead introduce a new dmop that has
> this syntax regardless of the domain type it's called from.
Looking at the code it is certainly a bit confusing. My point was that
we don't need to wait until polarity and trigger are set appropriately
to allow Dom0 to pass successfully a pirq_access_permitted() check. Xen
should be able to figure out that Dom0 is permitted pirq access.
So the idea was to move the call to allocate_and_map_gsi_pirq() earlier
somewhere because allocate_and_map_gsi_pirq doesn't require trigger or
polarity to be configured to work. But the suggestion of doing it a
"bind time" (meaning: XEN_DOMCTL_bind_pt_irq) was a bad idea.
But maybe we can find another location, maybe within
xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c, to call allocate_and_map_gsi_pirq() before
trigger and polarity are set and before the interrupt is unmasked.
Then we change the implementation of vioapic_hwdom_map_gsi to skip the
call to allocate_and_map_gsi_pirq, because by the time
vioapic_hwdom_map_gsi we assume that allocate_and_map_gsi_pirq had
already been done.
I am not familiar with vioapic.c but to give you an idea of what I was
thinking:
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
index 4e40d3609a..16d56fe851 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
@@ -189,14 +189,6 @@ static int vioapic_hwdom_map_gsi(unsigned int gsi, unsigned int trig,
return ret;
}
- ret = allocate_and_map_gsi_pirq(currd, pirq, &pirq);
- if ( ret )
- {
- gprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "vioapic: error mapping GSI %u: %d\n",
- gsi, ret);
- return ret;
- }
-
pcidevs_lock();
ret = pt_irq_create_bind(currd, &pt_irq_bind);
if ( ret )
@@ -287,6 +279,17 @@ static void vioapic_write_redirent(
hvm_dpci_eoi(d, gsi);
}
+ if ( is_hardware_domain(d) )
+ {
+ int pirq = gsi, ret;
+ ret = allocate_and_map_gsi_pirq(currd, pirq, &pirq);
+ if ( ret )
+ {
+ gprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "vioapic: error mapping GSI %u: %d\n",
+ gsi, ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+ }
if ( is_hardware_domain(d) && unmasked )
{
/*
