From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki" <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>,
"moderated list:XEN HYPERVISOR INTERFACE"
<xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
David Vrabel <dvrabel@cantab.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen-pciback: Consider MSI-X enabled only when MASKALL bit is cleared
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 14:33:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a84234d8-9f48-4b8f-e171-599c34840581@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y3YzY0aUc42cQGk/@mail-itl>
On 17.11.2022 14:13, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 12:54:51PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 17/11/2022 11:41, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
>>> Linux enables MSI-X before disabling INTx, but keeps MSI-X masked until
>>> the table is filled. Then it disables INTx just before clearing MASKALL
>>> bit. Currently this approach is rejected by xen-pciback.
>>> Allow setting PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_ENABLE while INTx is still enabled as long
>>> as PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_MASKALL is set too.
>>
>> The use of MSI-X interrupts is conditional on only the MSI-X Enable bit.
>> Setting MSI-X Enable effectively overrides the Interrupt Disable bit in the
>> Command register.
>
> That means the second chunk of the patch may even drop the '(new_value &
> PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_MASKALL)' part, right?
>
>> PCIe 6.0.1 section 7.7.2.2. "MSI-X Enable ... is prohibited from using INTx
>> interrupts (if implemented)." And there is similar wording for MSI Enable.
>
> And this would mean the 'field_config->int_type == INTERRUPT_TYPE_MSIX'
> part isn't necessary either.
>
> Jan in another thread pointed out that disabling INTx explicitly is
> still a useful workaround for a flawed hardware. But if that isn't
> mandated by the spec, maybe it doesn't need to be enforced by pciback
> either?
Well, allowing a device to go into a mode exhibiting undefined behavior
is what we ought to prevent when it comes to a DomU doing so vs overall
host safety.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-17 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-17 11:41 [PATCH] xen-pciback: Consider MSI-X enabled only when MASKALL bit is cleared Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
2022-11-17 12:28 ` Andrew Cooper
2022-11-17 13:43 ` Jan Beulich
2022-11-17 12:54 ` David Vrabel
2022-11-17 13:13 ` Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
2022-11-17 13:33 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2022-11-17 14:32 ` Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
2022-11-17 13:50 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a84234d8-9f48-4b8f-e171-599c34840581@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=dvrabel@cantab.net \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com \
--cc=oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.