From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 05/10] xen/arm64: gicv3: Use AFF1 when
 translating ICC_SGI1R_EL1 to cpumask
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 11:06:55 +0100
Message-ID: <1433758015.7108.423.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1433163388-16970-1-git-send-email-cbz@baozis.org>
	<1433163388-16970-6-git-send-email-cbz@baozis.org>
	<1433520573.7108.337.camel@citrix.com> <5571E99C.9050803@citrix.com>
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 <prvs=594e096ae=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>)
	id 1Z1txM-0001PY-P4
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:07:00 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5571E99C.9050803@citrix.com>
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@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Chen Baozi <baozich@gmail.com>, Chen Baozi <cbz@baozis.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 19:25 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> 
> On 05/06/2015 17:09, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> +         * injection, ignoring level 2 & 3.
> >> +         */
> >> +        if ( gicv3_sgir_to_cpumask(&vcpu_mask, sgir) )
> >> +        {
> >> +            gprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "Wrong affinity in SGI1R_EL register\n");
> >
> > I don't think we need to log this. The guest has asked to send an SGI to
> > a VCPU which we know can't possibly exist. I'm not sure what real h/w
> > would do, but if it is e.g. UNPREDICTABLE then we should consider
> > killing the guest here. I suspect it's actually just ignored, in which
> > case we can silently do the same.
> 
>  From the spec:
> 
> "Note: if a bit is one and the bit does not correspond to a valid target 
> processor, the bit must be ignored by the Distributor. In such cases, a 
> Distributor may optionally generate an SEI."
> 
> The implementation of SEI is implementation defined. I'm not sure what 
> would be the right behavior to adopt here.

In general I'm in favour of being as harsh as allowed by default (i.e.
without a good reason to do otherwise), to avoid guests coming to rely
on lenient behaviour which we might find we want to change in the
future.

Ian