Re: [PATCH 4/8] KVM: arm/arm64: Make vgic_v3_check_base more broadly usable

Christoffer Dall
2017-05-08T17:18:55Z

On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 06:13:01PM +0200, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Christoffer,
>
> On 08/05/2017 13:54, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > As we are about to fiddle with the io device registration mechanism
> > let's be a little more careful in verifying the addresses we can ealier
> > on to provide error messages to the user at time related to him/her
> > setting overlapping addresses.
> Above sentence would need some rewording.
> We still want to check a consistent

indeed :)

> > system before actually running the VM for the first time, so we make
> > vgic_v3_check_base available in the core vgic-v3 code as well as in the
> > other parts of the GICv3 code, namely the MMIO config code.
> >
> > We also return true for undefined base addresses so that the function
> > can be used before all base addresses are set; all callers already check
> > for uninitialized addresses before calling this function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> > virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
> > index 12e52a0..b934e78 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
> > @@ -329,19 +329,29 @@ int vgic_v3_save_pending_tables(struct kvm *kvm)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -/* check for overlapping regions and for regions crossing the end of memory */
> > -static bool vgic_v3_check_base(struct kvm *kvm)
> > +/*
> > + * Check for overlapping regions and for regions crossing the end of memory
> > + * for base addresses which have already been set.
> > + */
> > +bool vgic_v3_check_base(struct kvm *kvm)
> > {
> > struct vgic_dist *d = &kvm->arch.vgic;
> > gpa_t redist_size = KVM_VGIC_V3_REDIST_SIZE;
> >
> > redist_size *= atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus);
> >
> > - if (d->vgic_dist_base + KVM_VGIC_V3_DIST_SIZE < d->vgic_dist_base)
> > + if (!IS_VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF(d->vgic_dist_base) &&
> > + d->vgic_dist_base + KVM_VGIC_V3_DIST_SIZE < d->vgic_dist_base)
> > return false;
> > - if (d->vgic_redist_base + redist_size < d->vgic_redist_base)
> > +
> > + if (!IS_VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF(d->vgic_redist_base) &&
> > + d->vgic_redist_base + redist_size < d->vgic_redist_base)
> > return false;
> >
> > + if (IS_VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF(d->vgic_dist_base) &&
> > + IS_VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF(d->vgic_redist_base))
> > + return true;
> > +
> > if (d->vgic_dist_base + KVM_VGIC_V3_DIST_SIZE <= d->vgic_redist_base)
> > return true;
> It is unclear to me if the dunction can be called if either of the
> address is unset?

Yes, it can be called if both addreses are unset, in which case you'll
get a positive result. If a single address is set, we cannot check
interaction between the two addresses, but we can check the requirements
for the single address, and the interaction must be checked later.

Thanks,
-Christoffer

> > if (d->vgic_redist_base + redist_size <= d->vgic_dist_base)
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
> > index a2aeaa8..89eb935 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
> > @@ -175,6 +175,7 @@ int vgic_v3_map_resources(struct kvm *kvm);
> > int vgic_v3_lpi_sync_pending_status(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq);
> > int vgic_v3_save_pending_tables(struct kvm *kvm);
> > int vgic_register_redist_iodevs(struct kvm *kvm);
> > +bool vgic_v3_check_base(struct kvm *kvm);
> >
> > void vgic_v3_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > void vgic_v3_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >