Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
Date:   Tue, 12 Dec 2023 12:39:48 +0100
From:   Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
To:     Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc:     "Chen, Jiqian" <Jiqian.Chen@amd.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [RFC KERNEL PATCH v2 2/3] xen/pvh: Unmask irq for passthrough
 device in PVH dom0
Message-ID: <ZXhGhKkcmlEZOpwZ@macbook>
References: <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>
 <50ca26a1-38e3-45fb-9c39-56e4d04de3e0@suse.com>
 <ZXhBb0Vt6gDuprHa@macbook>
 <c5d4e8a4-b286-4352-bf96-a67cb132b452@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <c5d4e8a4-b286-4352-bf96-a67cb132b452@suse.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 12:19:49PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.12.2023 12:18, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:38:08AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> (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.
> > 
> > Well, the domain is the caller.
> 
> Granting permission to itself?

See below in the previous email, the issue is not with the
permissions, which are correctly assigned from
dom0_setup_permissions(), but the usage of domain_pirq_to_irq() in
pirq_access_permitted() as called by XEN_DOMCTL_irq_permission.
There's no need to play with the permissions at all.

Regards, Roger.