Re: [PATCH v4] hw/pci: enforce use of slot only slot 0 when devices have an upstream PCIE port

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 08:09:55AM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 20-Jun-2023, at 4:13 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:48:05PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
> >> When a device has an upstream PCIE port, we can only use slot 0.
> > 
> > Actually, it's when device is plugged into a PCIE port.
> > So maybe:
> > 
> > 	PCI Express ports only have one slot, so
> > 	PCI Express devices can only be plugged into
> > 	slot 0 on a PCIE port
> > 
> >> Non-zero slots
> >> are invalid. This change ensures that we throw an error if the user
> >> tries to hotplug a device with an upstream PCIE port to a non-zero slot.
> > 
> > it also adds a comment explaining why function 0 must not exist
> > when function != 0 is added. or maybe split that part out.
> > 
> >> CC: jusual@redhat.com
> >> CC: imammedo@redhat.com
> >> Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2128929
> >> Signed-off-by: Ani Sinha <anisinha@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> hw/pci/pci.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >> 
> >> changelog:
> >> v2: addressed issue with multifunction pcie root ports. Should allow
> >> hotplug on functions other than function 0.
> >> v3: improved commit message.
> >> v4: improve commit message and code comments further. Some more
> >> improvements might come in v5. No claims made here that this is
> >> the final one :-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c
> >> index bf38905b7d..30ce6a78cb 100644
> >> --- a/hw/pci/pci.c
> >> +++ b/hw/pci/pci.c
> >> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ bool pci_available = true;
> >> static char *pcibus_get_dev_path(DeviceState *dev);
> >> static char *pcibus_get_fw_dev_path(DeviceState *dev);
> >> static void pcibus_reset(BusState *qbus);
> >> +static bool pcie_has_upstream_port(PCIDevice *dev);
> >> 
> >> static Property pci_props[] = {
> >>     DEFINE_PROP_PCI_DEVFN("addr", PCIDevice, devfn, -1),
> >> @@ -1182,6 +1183,11 @@ static PCIDevice *do_pci_register_device(PCIDevice *pci_dev,
> >>     } else if (dev->hotplugged &&
> >>                !pci_is_vf(pci_dev) &&
> >>                pci_get_function_0(pci_dev)) {
> >> +        /*
> >> +         * populating function 0 triggers a bus scan from the guest that
> >> +         * exposes other non-zero functions. Hence we need to ensure that
> >> +         * function 0 wasn't added yet.
> >> +         */
> > 
> > Pls capitalize populating. Also, comments like this should come
> > before the logic they document, not after. By the way it doesn't
> > have to be a bus scan - I'd just say "a scan" - with ACPI
> > guest knows what was added and can just probe the device functions.
> > 
> >>         error_setg(errp, "PCI: slot %d function 0 already occupied by %s,"
> >>                    " new func %s cannot be exposed to guest.",
> >>                    PCI_SLOT(pci_get_function_0(pci_dev)->devfn),
> >> @@ -1189,6 +1195,18 @@ static PCIDevice *do_pci_register_device(PCIDevice *pci_dev,
> >>                    name);
> >> 
> >>        return NULL;
> >> +    } else if (dev->hotplugged &&
> > 
> > why hotplugged? Doesn't the same rule apply to all devices?
> > 
> >> +               !pci_is_vf(pci_dev) &&
> > 
> > Hmm. I think you copied it from here:
> >    } else if (dev->hotplugged &&
> >               !pci_is_vf(pci_dev) &&
> >               pci_get_function_0(pci_dev)) {
> > 
> > it makes sense there because VFs are added later
> > after PF exists.
> 
> I thought PFs are handled only in the host OS and only VFs are
> passthrough into the guest?

This is emulated SRIOV. host and guest would be nested L2.

> I thought this check was because VFs have
> a different domain address separate from other non-vf devices in the
> guest PCI tree. 

Maybe take a look at the SRIOV spec then.

> > 
> > But here it makes no sense that I can see.
> > 
> > 
> >> +               pcie_has_upstream_port(pci_dev) && PCI_SLOT(devfn)) {
> >> +        /*
> >> +         * If the device has an upstream PCIE port, like a pcie root port,
> > 
> > no, a root port can not be an upstream port.
> > 
> > 
> >> +         * we only support functions on slot 0.
> >> +         */
> >> +        error_setg(errp, "PCI: slot %d is not valid for %s,"
> >> +                   " only functions on slot 0 is supported for devices"
> >> +                   " with an upstream PCIE port.",
> > 
> > 
> > something like:
> > 
> >        error_setg(errp, "PCI: slot %d is not valid for %s:"
> >                   " PCI Express devices can only be plugged into slot 0")
> > 
> > and then you don't really need a comment.
> > 
> > 
> >> +                   PCI_SLOT(devfn), name);
> >> +        return NULL;
> >>     }
> >> 
> >>     pci_dev->devfn = devfn;
> >> -- 
> >> 2.39.1