Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/hvm: Allow writes to registers on the same page as MSI-X table

["Marek Marczykowski-Górecki" <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2963 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 03:03:17PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.03.2023 14:52, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 02:34:23PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 28.03.2023 14:05, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 01:28:44PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 03:49:23AM +0100, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> >>>>> +static bool cf_check msixtbl_page_accept(
> >>>>> +        const struct hvm_io_handler *handler, const ioreq_t *r)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +    ASSERT(r->type == IOREQ_TYPE_COPY);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +    return msixtbl_page_handler_get_hwaddr(
> >>>>> +            current->domain, r->addr, r->dir == IOREQ_WRITE);
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you want to accept it also if it's a write to the PBA, and
> >>>> just drop it.  You should always pass write=false and then drop it in
> >>>> msixtbl_page_write() if it falls in the PBA region (but still return
> >>>> X86EMUL_OKAY).
> >>>
> >>> I don't want to interfere with msixtbl_mmio_page_ops, this handler is
> >>> only about accesses not hitting actual MSI-X structures.
> >>
> >> In his functionally similar vPCI change I did ask Roger to handle the
> >> "extra" space right from the same handlers. Maybe that's going to be
> >> best here, too.
> > 
> > I have considered this option, but msixtbl_range() is already quite
> > complex, adding yet another case there won't make it easier to follow.
> 
> Do you care about the case of msixtbl_addr_to_desc() returning NULL at
> all for the purpose you have? 

IIUC I care specifically about this case.

> Like in Roger's patch I'd assume
> msixtbl_find_entry() needs extending what ranges it accepts; if need
> be another parameter may be added to cover cases where the extended
> coverage isn't wanted.
>
> > I mean, technically I can probably merge those two handlers together,
> > but I don't think it will result in nicer code. Especially since the
> > general direction is to abandon split of MSI-X table access handling
> > between Xen and QEMU and go with just QEMU doing it, hopefully at some
> > point not needing msixtbl_mmio_ops anymore (but still needing the one
> > for adjacent accesses).
> 
> Hmm, at this point I'm not convinced of this plan. Instead I was hoping
> that once vPCI properly supports PVH DomU-s, we may also be able to make
> use of it for HVM, delegating less to qemu rather than more.

In that case, this code won't be needed anymore, which will also make
this handler unnecessary.

Anyway, I tried to merge this handling into existing handlers and the
resulting patch is slightly bigger, so it doesn't seem to avoid any
duplication. The only benefit I can think of is avoiding iterating
msixtbl_list twice (for respective accept callbacks) on each access. Is
it worth a bit more complicated handlers?

-- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]