Re: [RFC KERNEL PATCH v2 2/3] xen/pvh: Unmask irq for passthrough device in PVH dom0

[Chen, Jiqian]

On 2023/12/12 19:39, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> 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.
Yes, the problem is pci_add_dm_done-> xc_domain_irq_permission-> XEN_DOMCTL_irq_permission-> pirq_access_permitted->domain_pirq_to_irq->return irq is 0, so it failed.
I am think that since the PVH doesn't use pirq, can we just skip this irq_permission check for PVH?

> 
> Regards, Roger.

-- 
Best regards,
Jiqian Chen.