Re: kvm-unit-test fail for split irqchip

[Wanpeng Li]

2016-09-14 17:42 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> On 14/09/2016 05:57, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> 2016-09-14 4:43 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/09/2016 21:01, Radim Krcmar wrote:
>>>> kvm_handle_interrupt() does
>>>>
>>>>   interrupt_request |= CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD
>>>>
>>>> which later calls cpu_get_pic_interrupt() in kvm_arch_pre_run(), but
>>>> that function uses stale information from APIC and injects 62 again.
>>>> If we synchronized the APIC, then the test would #GP, because there
>>>> would be no injectable interrupt in LAPIC or PIC, so pic_read_irq()
>>>> would return 15, thinking it was spurious.
>>>>
>>>> I think the bug starts in pic_irq_request(), which should not touch
>>>> LAPIC.  The patch below makes it work (just the second hunk is
>>>> sufficient), but it's still far from sane code ...
>>>
>>> This makes sense.  Most of the functions exported by hw/intc/apic.c
>>> should only be used with a userspace APIC:
>>>
>>> 0000000000000b70 T apic_accept_pic_intr
>>> 00000000000010f0 T apic_deliver_irq
>>> 00000000000011e0 T apic_deliver_pic_intr
>>> 0000000000001310 T apic_get_interrupt
>>> 0000000000001270 T apic_poll_irq
>>> 0000000000000a40 T apic_sipi
>>>
>>> The patch is okay, though for consistency with other code I'd use
>>> !kvm_irqchip_in_kernel() rather than !kvm_irqchip_is_split().
>>>
>>> Wanpeng, can you do that,
>>
>> Yeah, I just sent out a patch to fix the bug. Thanks for the long
>> discussion with me and thanks Radim's proposal. :)
>>
>>> and change hw/intc/apic.c to use a new casting
>>> macro
>>>
>>>     APICCommonState *s = APIC(dev);
>>>
>>> instead of APIC_COMMON?
>>>
>>
>> I'm not familiar with QOM too much, what APIC macro do you like?
>
> The macro would be defined like
>
> #define TYPE_APIC "apic"
> #define APIC(obj) \
>      OBJECT_CHECK(APICCommonState, (obj), TYPE_APIC)
>
> With this change and without your other patch, you should get an
> assertion failure in eventinj.flat (which would have pointed immediately
> at the bug!).

Good point, I just sent out the patch, it catches the bug as you expected. :)

Regards,
Wanpeng Li