| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87egxljk48.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 19:20:39 +0200
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc: stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/4] xen/pvhvm: Make MSI IRQs work after kexec
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:01:55AM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:40:40PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> >> When kexec was peformed MSI IRQs for passthrough-ed devices were already
>> >> mapped and we see non-zero pirq extracted from MSI msg. xen_irq_from_pirq()
>> >> fails as we have no IRQ mapping information for that. Requesting for new
>> >> mapping with __write_msi_msg() does not result in MSI IRQ being remapped so
>> >> we don't recieve these IRQs.
>> >
>> > receive
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for your comments!
>
> Thank you for quick turnaround with the answers!
>>
>> > How come '__write_msi_msg' does not result in new MSI IRQs?
>> >
>>
>> Actually that was the hidden question in my RFC :-)
>>
>> Let me describe what I see. When normal boot is performed we have the
>> following in xen_hvm_setup_msi_irqs():
>>
>> __read_msi_msg()
>> pirq -> 0
>>
>> then we allocate new pirq with
>> pirq = xen_allocate_pirq_msi()
>> pirq -> 54
>>
>> and we have the following mapping:
>> xen: msi --> pirq=54 --> irq=72
>>
>> in 'xl debug-keys i':
>> (XEN) IRQ: 29 affinity:04 vec:b9 type=PCI-MSI status=00000030 in-flight=0 domain-list=7: 54(----),
>>
>> After kexec we see the following:
>> __read_msi_msg()
>> pirq -> 54
>>
>> but as xen_irq_from_pirq() fails we follow the same path allocating new pirq:
>> pirq = xen_allocate_pirq_msi()
>> pirq -> 55
>>
>> and we have the following mapping:
>> xen: msi --> pirq=55 --> irq=75
>>
>> However (afaict) mapping in xen wasn't updated:
>>
>> in 'xl debug-keys i':
>> (XEN) IRQ: 29 affinity:02 vec:b9 type=PCI-MSI status=00000030 in-flight=0 domain-list=7: 54(--M-),
>
> I am wondering if that is related to in QEMU traditional:
>
> qemu-xen-trad: free all the pirqs for msi/msix when driver unloads
>
> (which in the upstream QEMU is 1d4fd4f0e2fc5dcae0c60e00cc9af95f52988050)
>
> If you have that patch in, is the PIRQ value correctly updated?
>
Thanks, that really works! I tested both kexec -e / kdump cases. I'm
wondering if we although need my commit to workaround non-fixed qemus?
>>
>> > Is it fair to state that your code ends up reading the MSI IRQ (PIRQ)
>> > from the device and updating the internal PIRQ<->IRQ code to match
>> > with the reality?
>> >
>>
>> Yea, 'always trust the device'.
>>
>> >>
>> >> RFC: I wasn't able to understand why commit af42b8d1 which introduced
>> >> xen_irq_from_pirq() check in xen_hvm_setup_msi_irqs() is checking that instead
>> >> of checking pirq > 0 as if the mapping was already done (and we have pirq>0 here)
>> >> we don't need to request for a new pirq. We're loosing existing PIRQ and I'm also
>> >> not sure when __write_msi_msg() with new PIRQ will result in new mapping.
>> >
>> > We don't request a new pirq. We end up returning before we call xen_allocate_pirq_msi.
>> > At least that is how the commit you mentioned worked.
>> >
>>
>> I meant to say that in case we have pirq > 0 from __read_msi_msg() but
>> xen_irq_from_pirq(pirq) fails (kexec-only case?) we always do
>> xen_allocate_pirq_msi() which brings us new pirq.
>>
>> > In regards to why using 'xen_irq_from_pirq' instead of just checking the PIRQ - is
>> > that we might be called twice by a buggy driver. As such we want to check
>> > our PIRQ<->IRQ to figure this out.
>>
>> But if we're called twice we'll see the same pirq, right? Or there are
>
> Good point.
>> some cases when we see 'crap' instead of pirq here?
>
> For PCI passthrough devices they will be zero until they are enabled.
> But I am not sure about the emulated devices, such as e1000 or such, which
> would also go through this path (I think - do we have MSI devices that
> we emulate in QEMU?)
AFAICT emulated e1000 doesn't use MSI (at least with qemu-tradidtional)
and with my patch series it works after kexec.
>
>>
>> I think it would be nice to use the same pirq after kexec instead of
>> allocating a new one even in case we can make remapping work.
>
> I concur.
>
> Stefano, do you recall why you used xen_irq_from_pirq instead of just
> trusting the 'pirq' value? Was it to workaround broken QEMU?
>
>>
>> Thanks for your comments again!
>>
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> arch/x86/pci/xen.c | 3 +--
>> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
>> >> index 905956f..685e8f1 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
>> >> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
>> >> @@ -231,8 +231,7 @@ static int xen_hvm_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, int type)
>> >> __read_msi_msg(msidesc, &msg);
>> >> pirq = MSI_ADDR_EXT_DEST_ID(msg.address_hi) |
>> >> ((msg.address_lo >> MSI_ADDR_DEST_ID_SHIFT) & 0xff);
>> >> - if (msg.data != XEN_PIRQ_MSI_DATA ||
>> >> - xen_irq_from_pirq(pirq) < 0) {
>> >> + if (msg.data != XEN_PIRQ_MSI_DATA || pirq <= 0) {
>> >> pirq = xen_allocate_pirq_msi(dev, msidesc);
>> >> if (pirq < 0) {
>> >> irq = -ENODEV;
>> >> --
>> >> 1.9.3
>> >>
>>
>> --
>> Vitaly
--
Vitaly
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists