From: dmkhn@proton.me
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>,
andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, anthony.perard@vates.tech,
roger.pau@citrix.com, sstabellini@kernel.org,
teddy.astie@vates.tech, dmukhin@ford.com,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/3] xen/domain: adjust domain ID allocation for Arm
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 09:04:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aEf1Hw+x35Yci/FS@kraken> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <11ea9475-d963-473d-a85b-d1c461e7b213@suse.com>
On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 10:26:22AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.06.2025 10:02, dmkhn@proton.me wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 08:53:12AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 06.06.2025 23:29, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>> Hi Denis,
> >>>
> >>> On 05/06/2025 23:05, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>>> Hi Denis,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 28/05/2025 23:50, dmkhn@proton.me wrote:
> >>>>> From: Denis Mukhin <dmkhn@proton.me>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Denis Mukhin <dmukhin@ford.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Remove the hardcoded domain ID 0 allocation for hardware domain and replace it
> >>>>> with a call to get_initial_domain_id() (returns the value of hardware_domid on
> >>>>> Arm).
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not entirely why this is done. Are you intending to pass a different domain ID? If so...
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Update domid_alloc(DOMID_INVALID) case to ensure that get_initial_domain_id()
> >>>>> ID is skipped during domain ID allocation to cover domU case in dom0less
> >>>>> configuration. That also fixes a potential issue with re-using ID#0 for domUs
> >>>>> when get_initial_domain_id() returns non-zero.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Denis Mukhin <dmukhin@ford.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> Changes since v8:
> >>>>> - rebased
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 4 ++--
> >>>>> xen/common/device-tree/dom0less-build.c | 9 +++------
> >>>>> xen/common/domain.c | 4 ++--
> >>>>> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> >>>>> index e9d563c269..0ad80b020a 100644
> >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> >>>>> @@ -2035,9 +2035,9 @@ void __init create_dom0(void)
> >>>>
> >>>> ... naming like create_dom0() probably wants to be renamed.
> >>>>
> >>>> That said, I am not convinced a domain other than 0 should have full privilege by default. So I would argue it should stay as ...
> >>>>
> >>>>> if ( !llc_coloring_enabled )
> >>>>> flags |= CDF_directmap;
> >>>>> - domid = domid_alloc(0);
> >>>>> + domid = domid_alloc(get_initial_domain_id());
> >>>>
> >>>> ... 0.
> >>>
> >>> Looking at the implementation of get_initial_domain_id(), I noticed the behavior was changed for x86 by [1].
> >>>
> >>> Before, get_initial_domain_id() was returning 0 except for the PV shim.
> >>> But now, it would could return the domain ID specified on the command line (via hardware_dom).
> >>>
> >>> From my understanding, the goal of the command line was to create the hardware domain *after* boot. So initially we create dom0 and then initialize the hardware domain. With the patch below, this has changed.
> >>>
> >>> However, from the commit message, I don't understand why. It seems like we broke late hwdom?
> >>>
> >>> For instance, late_hwdom_init() has the following assert:
> >>>
> >>> dom0 = rcu_lock_domain_by_id(0);
> >>> ASSERT(dom0 != NULL);
> >>>
> >>> Jan, I saw you were involved in the review of the series. Any idea why this was changed?
> >>
> >> I simply overlooked this aspect when looking at the change. You're right, things
> >> were broken there. Unless a simple and clean fix can be made relatively soon, I
> >> think this simply needs reverting (which may mean to revert any later commits
> >> that depend on that). I can't help noting that in this console rework there were
> >> way too many issues, and I fear more than just this one may have slipped
> >> through. I therefore wonder whether taken as a whole this was/is worth both the
> >> submitter's and all the reviewers' time.
> >
> > Yes, sorry, I overlooked late_hwdom_init() modification.
> >
> > IMO, the clean fix would be adding another command line parameter
> > `control_domid` (with default value 0), make get_initial_domain_id() return it
> > instead of current `hardware_domid` and update late_hwdom_init() to use
> > `control_domid` insted of open-coded 0.
>
> No, no new command line option will address this. Original behavior needs to be
> restored (either by correcting the earlier change or, as said, be reverting).
Correction of the earlier change:
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/dmukhin/xen/-/commit/b7f194650307a08a9e6da5aa9fdd1f8a9afd67eb
re: command line option: I meant something like this:
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/dmukhin/xen/-/commit/51a519de6ea73ff3b650fd9bd4f3c5c63f64c069
>
> Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-10 9:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-28 22:50 [PATCH v9 0/3] xen/domain: domain ID allocation dmkhn
2025-05-28 22:50 ` [PATCH v9 1/3] xen/domain: unify " dmkhn
2025-06-05 21:58 ` Julien Grall
2025-06-06 6:55 ` dmkhn
2025-06-07 7:18 ` Julien Grall
2025-06-06 7:02 ` Jan Beulich
2025-05-28 22:50 ` [PATCH v9 2/3] xen/domain: adjust domain ID allocation for Arm dmkhn
2025-05-29 23:54 ` Stefano Stabellini
2025-06-05 22:05 ` Julien Grall
2025-06-06 21:29 ` Julien Grall
2025-06-10 6:53 ` Jan Beulich
2025-06-10 8:02 ` dmkhn
2025-06-10 8:26 ` Jan Beulich
2025-06-10 9:04 ` dmkhn [this message]
2025-06-10 9:44 ` Julien Grall
2025-06-10 18:33 ` Stefano Stabellini
2025-06-10 21:37 ` Jason Andryuk
2025-06-10 23:48 ` dmkhn
2025-06-10 23:47 ` dmkhn
2025-05-28 22:50 ` [PATCH v9 3/3] xen/domain: introduce CONFIG_MAX_DOMID dmkhn
2025-05-30 0:04 ` Stefano Stabellini
2025-06-02 9:15 ` 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=aEf1Hw+x35Yci/FS@kraken \
--to=dmkhn@proton.me \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=anthony.perard@vates.tech \
--cc=dmukhin@ford.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=julien@xen.org \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=teddy.astie@vates.tech \
--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.