Re: [PATCH v10 09/26] gunyah: rsc_mgr: Add VM lifecycle RPC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 2/15/2023 10:39 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 01:23:42PM -0800, Elliot Berman wrote:

Add Gunyah Resource Manager RPC to launch an unauthenticated VM.

Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile      |   2 +-
  drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.h     |  45 ++++++
  drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr_rpc.c | 226 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  include/linux/gunyah_rsc_mgr.h    |  73 ++++++++++
  4 files changed, 345 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
  create mode 100644 drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr_rpc.c

diff --git a/drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile b/drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile
index cc864ff5abbb..de29769f2f3f 100644
--- a/drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile
@@ -2,5 +2,5 @@
obj-$(CONFIG_GUNYAH) += gunyah.o -gunyah_rsc_mgr-y += rsc_mgr.o
+gunyah_rsc_mgr-y += rsc_mgr.o rsc_mgr_rpc.o
  obj-$(CONFIG_GUNYAH) += gunyah_rsc_mgr.o
diff --git a/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.h b/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.h
index d4e799a7526f..7406237bc66d 100644
--- a/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.h
+++ b/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.h
@@ -74,4 +74,49 @@ struct gh_rm;
  int gh_rm_call(struct gh_rm *rsc_mgr, u32 message_id, void *req_buff, size_t req_buff_size,
  		void **resp_buf, size_t *resp_buff_size);
+/* Message IDs: VM Management */
+#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_ALLOC_VMID			0x56000001
+#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_DEALLOC_VMID		0x56000002
+#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_START			0x56000004
+#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_STOP			0x56000005
+#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_RESET			0x56000006
+#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_CONFIG_IMAGE		0x56000009
+#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_INIT			0x5600000B
+#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_GET_HYP_RESOURCES		0x56000020
+#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_GET_VMID			0x56000024
+
+struct gh_rm_vm_common_vmid_req {
+	__le16 vmid;
+	__le16 reserved0;

reserved for what?  What is a valid value for this field?  Should it be
checked for 0?

This struct is transmitted "over the wire" and RM makes all of its structures 4-byte aligned. The reserved fields are padding for this alignment and will be zero but don't need to be checked. Linux initializes the reserved fields to zero.


Same with other "reserved0" fields in this file.


+} __packed;
+
+/* Call: VM_ALLOC */
+struct gh_rm_vm_alloc_vmid_resp {
+	__le16 vmid;
+	__le16 reserved0;
+} __packed;
+
+/* Call: VM_STOP */
+struct gh_rm_vm_stop_req {
+	__le16 vmid;
+#define GH_RM_VM_STOP_FLAG_FORCE_STOP	BIT(0)
+	u8 flags;
+	u8 reserved;

Why just "reserved" and not "reserved0"?  Naming is hard :(


Some fields have multiple reserved fields. I'll clean up so "reserved0" only appears when there are multiple padding fields.

Thanks,
Elliot



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux