On 16/05/2022 17.35, Matthew Rosato wrote:
On 5/16/22 5:52 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 13/05/2022 21.15, Matthew Rosato wrote:
The KVM_S390_ZPCI_OP ioctl provides a mechanism for managing
hardware-assisted virtualization features for s390X zPCI passthrough.
s/s390X/s390x/
Add the first 2 operations, which can be used to enable/disable
the specified device for Adapter Event Notification interpretation.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst | 45 +++++++++++++++++++
arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 23 ++++++++++
arch/s390/kvm/pci.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/s390/kvm/pci.h | 2 +
include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 31 +++++++++++++
5 files changed, 182 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
index 4a900cdbc62e..a7cd5ebce031 100644
--- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
+++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
@@ -5645,6 +5645,51 @@ enabled with ``arch_prctl()``, but this may change
in the future.
The offsets of the state save areas in struct kvm_xsave follow the
contents
of CPUID leaf 0xD on the host.
+4.135 KVM_S390_ZPCI_OP
+--------------------
+
+:Capability: KVM_CAP_S390_ZPCI_OP
+:Architectures: s390
+:Type: vcpu ioctl
vcpu? ... you're wiring it up in kvm_arch_vm_ioctl() later, so I assume
it's rather a VM ioctl?
Yup, VM ioctl, bad copy/paste job...
+:Parameters: struct kvm_s390_zpci_op (in)
+:Returns: 0 on success, <0 on error
+
+Used to manage hardware-assisted virtualization features for zPCI devices.
+
+Parameters are specified via the following structure::
+
+ struct kvm_s390_zpci_op {
+ /* in */
If all is "in", why is there a copy_to_user() in the code later?
Oh no, this is a leftover from a prior version... Good catch. There should
no longer be a copy_to_user.
+ __u32 fh; /* target device */
+ __u8 op; /* operation to perform */
+ __u8 pad[3];
+ union {
+ /* for KVM_S390_ZPCIOP_REG_AEN */
+ struct {
+ __u64 ibv; /* Guest addr of interrupt bit vector */
+ __u64 sb; /* Guest addr of summary bit */
If this is really a vcpu ioctl, what kind of addresses are you talking
about here? virtual addresses? real addresses? absolute addresses?
It's a VM ioctl. These are guest kernel physical addresses that are later
pinned in arch/s390/kvm/pci.c:kvm_s390_pci_aif_enable() as part of handling
the ioctl.
+ __u32 flags;
+ __u32 noi; /* Number of interrupts */
+ __u8 isc; /* Guest interrupt subclass */
+ __u8 sbo; /* Offset of guest summary bit vector */
+ __u16 pad;
+ } reg_aen;
+ __u64 reserved[8];
+ } u;
+ };
+
+The type of operation is specified in the "op" field.
+KVM_S390_ZPCIOP_REG_AEN is used to register the VM for adapter event
+notification interpretation, which will allow firmware delivery of adapter
+events directly to the vm, with KVM providing a backup delivery mechanism;
+KVM_S390_ZPCIOP_DEREG_AEN is used to subsequently disable interpretation of
+adapter event notifications.
+
+The target zPCI function must also be specified via the "fh" field. For the
+KVM_S390_ZPCIOP_REG_AEN operation, additional information to establish
firmware
+delivery must be provided via the "reg_aen" struct.
+
+The "reserved" field is meant for future extensions.
Maybe also mention the "pad" fields? And add should these also be
initialized to 0 by the calling userspace program?
Sure, I can mention them. And yes, I agree that userspace should initialize
them to 0, I'll update the QEMU series accordingly.
I just spotted the corresponding patch in the QEMU series, and I think it
should already be fine there, since you're using "= { ... }" while declaring
the variables:
+int s390_pci_kvm_aif_disable(S390PCIBusDevice *pbdev)
+{
+ struct kvm_s390_zpci_op args = {
+ .fh = pbdev->fh,
+ .op = KVM_S390_ZPCIOP_DEREG_AEN
+ };
That means unspecified fields will be set to 0 by the compiler already, as
far as I know.
Thomas
