Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Message-ID: <50ca26a1-38e3-45fb-9c39-56e4d04de3e0@suse.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:38:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [RFC KERNEL PATCH v2 2/3] xen/pvh: Unmask irq for passthrough
 device in PVH dom0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=C3=A9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
        "Chen, Jiqian" <Jiqian.Chen@amd.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Stabellini, Stefano" <stefano.stabellini@amd.com>,
        "Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
        "Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
        "Hildebrand, Stewart" <Stewart.Hildebrand@amd.com>,
        "Ragiadakou, Xenia" <Xenia.Ragiadakou@amd.com>,
        "Huang, Honglei1" <Honglei1.Huang@amd.com>,
        "Zhang, Julia" <Julia.Zhang@amd.com>,
        "Huang, Ray" <Ray.Huang@amd.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2311301912350.110490@ubuntu-linux-20-04-desktop>
 <ZWmgJNidFsfkDp7q@macbook>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2312011857260.110490@ubuntu-linux-20-04-desktop>
 <ZW2ptexPQXrWBiOS@macbook>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2312041413000.110490@ubuntu-linux-20-04-desktop>
 <ZW7rDjjC0gxEI1cq@macbook> <15275706-5c31-4e29-aa29-9f5e90526219@suse.com>
 <BL1PR12MB5849C871B0B9577D1E0BF576E784A@BL1PR12MB5849.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZXculMdLgwGaRC7i@macbook>
 <BL1PR12MB584997DDE6839F2340022976E78EA@BL1PR12MB5849.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZXgeieg4E8UN0KoN@macbook>
From:   Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@suse.com; keydata=
 xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk
 hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK
 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD
 /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py
 O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl
 MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP
 nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo
 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp
 Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC
 AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee
 e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF
 hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l
 IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS
 FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj
 t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8
 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3
 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9
 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V
 m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM
 EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr
 wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A
 nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
In-Reply-To: <ZXgeieg4E8UN0KoN@macbook>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

(I think the Cc list is too long here, but then I don't know who to
keep and who to possibly drop.)

On 12.12.2023 09:49, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 06:16:43AM +0000, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>> On 2023/12/11 23:45, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 06:07:26AM +0000, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>>>> +static int xen_pvh_setup_gsi(gsi_info_t *gsi_info)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct physdev_setup_gsi setup_gsi;
>>>> +
>>>> +       setup_gsi.gsi = gsi_info->gsi;
>>>> +       setup_gsi.triggering = (gsi_info->trigger == ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE ? 0 : 1);
>>>> +       setup_gsi.polarity = (gsi_info->polarity == ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH ? 0 : 1);
>>>> +
>>>> +       return HYPERVISOR_physdev_op(PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi, &setup_gsi);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Hm, why not simply call pcibios_enable_device() from pciback?  What
>> pcibios_enable_device had been called when using cmd "xl pci-assignable-add sbdf" from pciback. But it didn't do map_pirq and setup_gsi.
>> Because pcibios_enable_device-> pcibios_enable_irq-> __acpi_register_gsi(acpi_register_gsi_ioapic PVH specific)
>>> you are doing here using the hypercalls is a backdoor into what's done
>>> automatically by Xen on IO-APIC accesses by a PVH dom0.
>> But the gsi didn't be unmasked, and vioapic_hwdom_map_gsi is never called.
>> So, I think in pciback, if we can do what vioapic_hwdom_map_gsi does.
>>
> 
> I see, it does setup the IO-APIC pin but doesn't unmask it, that's
> what I feared.
> 
>>> It will be much more natural for the PVH dom0 model to simply use the
>>> native way to configure and unmask the IO-APIC pin, and that would
>>> correctly setup the triggering/polarity and bind it to dom0 without
>>> requiring the usage of any hypercalls.
>> Do you still prefer that I called unmask_irq in pcistub_init_device, as this v2 patch do?
>> But Thomas Gleixner think it is not suitable to export unmask_irq.
> 
> Yeah, that wasn't good.
> 
>>>
>>> Is that an issue since in that case the gsi will get mapped and bound
>>> to dom0?
>> Dom0 do map_pirq is to pass the check xc_domain_irq_permission()-> pirq_access_permitted(), 
> 
> Can we see about finding another way to fix this check?
> 
> One option would be granting permissions over the IRQ in
> PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi?

There's no domain available there, and imo it's also the wrong interface to
possibly grant any permissions.

> Otherwise we could see about modifying the logic in PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq
> so that the hardware domain can map IRQs to other domains without
> having it mapped to itself first?

While this may be possible to arrange for, it still would feel wrong. How
would you express the same in a disaggregated environment? I.e. how would
you make sure a domain trying to grant permission is actually permitted to
do so for the resource in question?

> I think the call to PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi in pciback is fine, but I
> would really like to avoid the usage of PHYSDEVOP_{,un}map_pirq on a
> PVH dom0 against itself.

+1

Jan