From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/24] xen/arm: gic: Add sanity checks
 gic_route_irq_to_guest
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:20:10 +0000
Message-ID: <1424704810.27930.155.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1421159133-31526-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1421159133-31526-11-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1424448429.30924.333.camel@citrix.com> <54E76EAC.6090100@linaro.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1YPuo7-00016z-7R
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:20:27 +0000
In-Reply-To: <54E76EAC.6090100@linaro.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tim@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 17:28 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
> On 20/02/15 16:07, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > More importantly: We have (hopefully) guaranteed elsewhere that an PPI
> > or SGI can never make it here, I take it. If that's the case then either
> > the comment should say that, or more likely, the comment is redundently
> > restating the assert's condition.
> 
> I will update the comment to /* Caller has already checked that the IRQ
> is an SPIs */

Just "SPI", but otherwise sounds good.

> > Care needs to be taken here that priority is not under unfettered guest
> > control -- since this configures the physical GIC we need to e.g. ensure
> > that Xen's own IPIs have higher priority than anything a guest can ever
> > set. (Realistically this probably means we want to constrain guests to
> > the bottom half of the priority range and expose different BPR etc in
> > the vgic, out of scope here though)
> 
> The priority is controlled by route_irq_to_guest and set statically
> using GIC_PRI_IRQ.
> 
> If we decide to hardcoded the priority here, we should drop the
> parameter on gic_route_irq_guest. But not keeping both.

There is a middle ground, which is for guest-routed IRQs to be allowed a
subset of the real priorities, but until those associated checks are in
place I think hardcoding in gic_route_irq_to_guest leaves less scope for
mistakes.

Ian.