Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Allow dynamic mapping of physical/virtual interrupts

[Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>]

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 06:56:38PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> In order to be able to feed physical interrupts to a guest, we need
> to be able to establish the virtual-physical mapping between the two
> worlds.
> 
> The mappings are kept in a set of RCU lists, indexed by virtual interrupts.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/kvm/arm.c     |   2 +
>  include/kvm/arm_vgic.h |  25 +++++++++
>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c    | 144 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> index 1583a34..d5ce5cc 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -125,6 +125,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto out_free_stage2_pgd;
>  
> +	kvm_vgic_init(kvm);
>  	kvm_timer_init(kvm);
>  
>  	/* Mark the initial VMID generation invalid */
> @@ -249,6 +250,7 @@ out:
>  
>  void kvm_arch_vcpu_postcreate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
> +	kvm_vgic_vcpu_postcreate(vcpu);
>  }
>  
>  void kvm_arch_vcpu_free(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> index 4f9fa1d..32e57d2 100644
> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> @@ -159,6 +159,19 @@ struct vgic_io_device {
>  	struct kvm_io_device dev;
>  };
>  
> +struct irq_phys_map {
> +	u32			virt_irq;
> +	u32			phys_irq;
> +	u32			irq;
> +	bool			active;
> +};
> +
> +struct irq_phys_map_entry {
> +	struct list_head	entry;
> +	struct rcu_head		rcu;
> +	struct irq_phys_map	map;
> +};
> +
>  struct vgic_dist {
>  	spinlock_t		lock;
>  	bool			in_kernel;
> @@ -256,6 +269,10 @@ struct vgic_dist {
>  	struct vgic_vm_ops	vm_ops;
>  	struct vgic_io_device	dist_iodev;
>  	struct vgic_io_device	*redist_iodevs;
> +
> +	/* Virtual irq to hwirq mapping */
> +	spinlock_t		irq_phys_map_lock;
> +	struct list_head	irq_phys_map_list;
>  };
>  
>  struct vgic_v2_cpu_if {
> @@ -307,6 +324,9 @@ struct vgic_cpu {
>  		struct vgic_v2_cpu_if	vgic_v2;
>  		struct vgic_v3_cpu_if	vgic_v3;
>  	};
> +
> +	/* Protected by the distributor's irq_phys_map_lock */
> +	struct list_head	irq_phys_map_list;
>  };
>  
>  #define LR_EMPTY	0xff
> @@ -321,8 +341,10 @@ int kvm_vgic_addr(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type, u64 *addr, bool write);
>  int kvm_vgic_hyp_init(void);
>  int kvm_vgic_map_resources(struct kvm *kvm);
>  int kvm_vgic_get_max_vcpus(void);
> +void kvm_vgic_init(struct kvm *kvm);
>  int kvm_vgic_create(struct kvm *kvm, u32 type);
>  void kvm_vgic_destroy(struct kvm *kvm);
> +void kvm_vgic_vcpu_postcreate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  void kvm_vgic_vcpu_destroy(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  void kvm_vgic_flush_hwstate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  void kvm_vgic_sync_hwstate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> @@ -331,6 +353,9 @@ int kvm_vgic_inject_irq(struct kvm *kvm, int cpuid, unsigned int irq_num,
>  void vgic_v3_dispatch_sgi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg);
>  int kvm_vgic_vcpu_pending_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  int kvm_vgic_vcpu_active_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> +struct irq_phys_map *vgic_map_phys_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> +				       int virt_irq, int irq);
> +int vgic_unmap_phys_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct irq_phys_map *map);

should these functions not have a kvm_ prefix?

>  
>  #define irqchip_in_kernel(k)	(!!((k)->arch.vgic.in_kernel))
>  #define vgic_initialized(k)	(!!((k)->arch.vgic.nr_cpus))
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index 5bd1695..3424329 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>  #include <linux/of.h>
>  #include <linux/of_address.h>
>  #include <linux/of_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/rculist.h>
>  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>  
>  #include <asm/kvm_emulate.h>
> @@ -82,6 +83,8 @@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  static void vgic_retire_lr(int lr_nr, int irq, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  static struct vgic_lr vgic_get_lr(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int lr);
>  static void vgic_set_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int lr, struct vgic_lr lr_desc);
> +static struct irq_phys_map *vgic_irq_map_search(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> +						int virt_irq);
>  
>  static const struct vgic_ops *vgic_ops;
>  static const struct vgic_params *vgic;
> @@ -1583,6 +1586,131 @@ static irqreturn_t vgic_maintenance_handler(int irq, void *data)
>  	return IRQ_HANDLED;
>  }
>  
> +static struct list_head *vgic_get_irq_phys_map(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> +					       int virt_irq)
> +{
> +	if (virt_irq < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)
> +		return &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.irq_phys_map_list;
> +	else
> +		return &vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.irq_phys_map_list;
> +}
> +

You know what I'm going to ask you for here, but let me help out with
the framwork:

/**
 * vgic_map_phys_irq - map a virtual IRQ to a physical IRQ
 * @vcpu: The VCPU pointer
 * @virt_irq: The virtual irq number
 * @irq: The Linux IRQ number
 *
 * 
 */

> +struct irq_phys_map *vgic_map_phys_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> +				       int virt_irq, int irq)
> +{
> +	struct vgic_dist *dist = &vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic;
> +	struct list_head *root = vgic_get_irq_phys_map(vcpu, virt_irq);
> +	struct irq_phys_map *map;
> +	struct irq_phys_map_entry *entry;
> +	struct irq_desc *desc;
> +	struct irq_data *data;
> +	int phys_irq;
> +
> +	desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> +	if (!desc) {
> +		kvm_err("kvm_arch_timer: can't obtain interrupt descriptor\n");

arch_timer?  this is vgic code, no?

> +		return NULL;
> +	}
> +
> +	data = irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc);
> +	while (data->parent_data)
> +		data = data->parent_data;
> +
> +	phys_irq = data->hwirq;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&dist->irq_phys_map_lock);
> +
> +	/* Try to match an existing mapping */
> +	map = vgic_irq_map_search(vcpu, virt_irq);
> +	if (map) {
> +		/* Make sure this mapping matches */
> +		if (map->phys_irq != phys_irq	||
> +		    map->irq      != irq)

when would this happen?  Is this something that should gracefully just
be accepted or is it a bug?

> +			map = NULL;
> +
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Create a new mapping */
> +	entry = kzalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_ATOMIC);

is GFP_ATOMIC really warranted here?  The situatotion where you have an
existing map is extremely rare, I suppose, and is in fact an error, so
you could just pre-allocate and free on error.

> +	if (!entry)

Here you seem to be returning a valid value on an error?  Perhaps you
should return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) and generally use ERR_PTR/PTR_ERR here.

> +		goto out;
> +
> +	map           = &entry->map;
> +	map->virt_irq = virt_irq;
> +	map->phys_irq = phys_irq;
> +	map->irq      = irq;
> +
> +	list_add_tail_rcu(&entry->entry, root);
> +
> +out:
> +	spin_unlock(&dist->irq_phys_map_lock);
> +	return map;
> +}
> +
> +static struct irq_phys_map *vgic_irq_map_search(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> +						int virt_irq)
> +{
> +	struct list_head *root = vgic_get_irq_phys_map(vcpu, virt_irq);
> +	struct irq_phys_map_entry *entry;
> +	struct irq_phys_map *map;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, root, entry) {
> +		map = &entry->map;
> +		if (map->virt_irq == virt_irq) {
> +			rcu_read_unlock();
> +			return map;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static void vgic_free_phys_irq_map_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> +{
> +	struct irq_phys_map_entry *entry;
> +
> +	entry = container_of(rcu, struct irq_phys_map_entry, rcu);
> +	kfree(entry);
> +}
> +
> +int vgic_unmap_phys_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct irq_phys_map *map)
> +{
> +	struct vgic_dist *dist = &vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic;
> +	struct irq_phys_map_entry *entry;
> +
> +	if (!map)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	entry = container_of(map, struct irq_phys_map_entry, map);

could this race with vgic_destroy_irq_phys_map, such that
vgic_destroy_irq_phys_map removes the entry from the list while we're
spinning on the lock, and then when we proceed we free the entry twice?

> +
> +	spin_lock(&dist->irq_phys_map_lock);
> +	list_del_rcu(&entry->entry);
> +	call_rcu(&entry->rcu, vgic_free_phys_irq_map_rcu);
> +	spin_unlock(&dist->irq_phys_map_lock);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void vgic_destroy_irq_phys_map(struct kvm *kvm, struct list_head *root)
> +{
> +	struct vgic_dist *dist = &kvm->arch.vgic;
> +	struct irq_phys_map_entry *entry;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&dist->irq_phys_map_lock);
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry(entry, root, entry) {
> +		list_del_rcu(&entry->entry);
> +		call_rcu(&entry->rcu, vgic_free_phys_irq_map_rcu);
> +	}
> +
> +	spin_unlock(&dist->irq_phys_map_lock);
> +}
> +
>  void kvm_vgic_vcpu_destroy(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
>  	struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
> @@ -1591,6 +1719,7 @@ void kvm_vgic_vcpu_destroy(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	kfree(vgic_cpu->active_shared);
>  	kfree(vgic_cpu->pend_act_shared);
>  	kfree(vgic_cpu->vgic_irq_lr_map);
> +	vgic_destroy_irq_phys_map(vcpu->kvm, &vgic_cpu->irq_phys_map_list);
>  	vgic_cpu->pending_shared = NULL;
>  	vgic_cpu->active_shared = NULL;
>  	vgic_cpu->pend_act_shared = NULL;
> @@ -1627,6 +1756,12 @@ static int vgic_vcpu_init_maps(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int nr_irqs)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +void kvm_vgic_vcpu_postcreate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vgic_cpu->irq_phys_map_list);

can you do this as part of vgic_init?

> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * kvm_vgic_get_max_vcpus - Get the maximum number of VCPUs allowed by HW
>   *
> @@ -1664,6 +1799,7 @@ void kvm_vgic_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
>  	kfree(dist->irq_spi_target);
>  	kfree(dist->irq_pending_on_cpu);
>  	kfree(dist->irq_active_on_cpu);
> +	vgic_destroy_irq_phys_map(kvm, &dist->irq_phys_map_list);
>  	dist->irq_sgi_sources = NULL;
>  	dist->irq_spi_cpu = NULL;
>  	dist->irq_spi_target = NULL;
> @@ -1787,6 +1923,13 @@ static int init_vgic_model(struct kvm *kvm, int type)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +void kvm_vgic_init(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> +	spin_lock_init(&kvm->arch.vgic.lock);
> +	spin_lock_init(&kvm->arch.vgic.irq_phys_map_lock);
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kvm->arch.vgic.irq_phys_map_list);

why can we not do this as part of kvm_vgic_create?

at least we need to think about naming here or document clearly what the
various init functions do; it is not clear what the difference between
vgic_init and kvm_vgic_init is...

> +}
> +
>  int kvm_vgic_create(struct kvm *kvm, u32 type)
>  {
>  	int i, vcpu_lock_idx = -1, ret;
> @@ -1832,7 +1975,6 @@ int kvm_vgic_create(struct kvm *kvm, u32 type)
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto out_unlock;
>  
> -	spin_lock_init(&kvm->arch.vgic.lock);
>  	kvm->arch.vgic.in_kernel = true;
>  	kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_model = type;
>  	kvm->arch.vgic.vctrl_base = vgic->vctrl_base;
> -- 
> 2.1.4
>