Re: [PATCH RFC 00/39] x86/KVM: Xen HVM guest support

[Joao Martins]

On 2/20/19 9:09 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 20/02/19 21:15, Joao Martins wrote:
>>  2. PV Driver support (patches 17 - 39)
>>
>>  We start by redirecting hypercalls from the backend to routines
>>  which emulate the behaviour that PV backends expect i.e. grant
>>  table and interdomain events. Next, we add support for late
>>  initialization of xenbus, followed by implementing
>>  frontend/backend communication mechanisms (i.e. grant tables and
>>  interdomain event channels). Finally, introduce xen-shim.ko,
>>  which will setup a limited Xen environment. This uses the added
>>  functionality of Xen specific shared memory (grant tables) and
>>  notifications (event channels).
> 
> I am a bit worried by the last patches, they seem really brittle and
> prone to breakage.  I don't know Xen well enough to understand if the
> lack of support for GNTMAP_host_map is fixable, but if not, you have to
> define a completely different hypercall.
> 
I guess Ankur already answered this; so just to stack this on top of his comment.

The xen_shim_domain() is only meant to handle the case where the backend
has/can-have full access to guest memory [i.e. netback and blkback would work
with similar assumptions as vhost?]. For the normal case, where a backend *in a
guest* maps and unmaps other guest memory, this is not applicable and these
changes don't affect that case.

IOW, the PV backend here sits on the hypervisor, and the hypercalls aren't
actual hypercalls but rather invoking shim_hypercall(). The call chain would go
more or less like:

<netback|blkback|scsiback>
 gnttab_map_refs(map_ops, pages)
   HYPERVISOR_grant_table_op(GNTTABOP_map_grant_ref,...)
     shim_hypercall()
       shim_hcall_gntmap()

Our reasoning was that given we are already in KVM, why mapping a page if the
user (i.e. the kernel PV backend) is himself? The lack of GNTMAP_host_map is how
the shim determines its user doesn't want to map the page. Also, there's another
issue where PV backends always need a struct page to reference the device
inflight data as Ankur pointed out.

> Of course, tests are missing.

FWIW: this was deliberate as we wanted to get folks impressions before
proceeding further with the work.

> You should use the
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/ framework, and ideally each patch should
> come with coverage for the newly-added code.
> Got it.

Cheers,
	Joao