Re: [PATCH v5 10/26] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Wire mapping/unmapping of VLPIs in VFIO irq bypass

Marc Zyngier
2017-11-07T14:42:44Z

Hi Eric,

On 07/11/17 13:06, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 27/10/2017 16:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Let's use the irq bypass mechanism introduced for platform device
>> interrupts
> nit: I would remove "introduced for platform device interrupts"
> as this is not upstream yet. x86 posted interrupts also use it.
>
>>
> and establish our LPI->VLPI mapping.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>> ---
>> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 8 ++++
>> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 6 ++-
>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> index 7eeb6c2a2f9c..2f750c770bf2 100644
>> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> @@ -373,4 +373,12 @@ int kvm_vgic_setup_default_irq_routing(struct kvm *kvm);
>>
>> int kvm_vgic_set_owner(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned int intid, void *owner);
>>
>> +struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry;
>> +
>> +int kvm_vgic_v4_set_forwarding(struct kvm *kvm, int irq,
>> + struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *irq_entry);
>> +
>> +int kvm_vgic_v4_unset_forwarding(struct kvm *kvm, int irq,
>> + struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *irq_entry);
>> +
>> #endif /* __KVM_ARM_VGIC_H */
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
>> index 5d5218ecd547..8388c1cc23f6 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
>> @@ -1462,7 +1462,8 @@ int kvm_arch_irq_bypass_add_producer(struct irq_bypass_consumer *cons,
>> struct kvm_kernel_irqfd *irqfd =
>> container_of(cons, struct kvm_kernel_irqfd, consumer);
>>
>> - return 0;
>> + return kvm_vgic_v4_set_forwarding(irqfd->kvm, prod->irq,
>> + &irqfd->irq_entry);
>> }
>> void kvm_arch_irq_bypass_del_producer(struct irq_bypass_consumer *cons,
>> struct irq_bypass_producer *prod)
>> @@ -1470,7 +1471,8 @@ void kvm_arch_irq_bypass_del_producer(struct irq_bypass_consumer *cons,
>> struct kvm_kernel_irqfd *irqfd =
>> container_of(cons, struct kvm_kernel_irqfd, consumer);
>>
>> - return;
>> + kvm_vgic_v4_unset_forwarding(irqfd->kvm, prod->irq,
>> + &irqfd->irq_entry);
>> }
>>
>> void kvm_arch_irq_bypass_stop(struct irq_bypass_consumer *cons)
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
>> index c794f0cef09e..01a2889b7b7c 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>> #include <linux/kvm_host.h>
>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h>
>>
>> #include "vgic.h"
>>
>> @@ -81,3 +82,110 @@ void vgic_v4_teardown(struct kvm *kvm)
>> its_vm->nr_vpes = 0;
>> its_vm->vpes = NULL;
>> }
>> +
>> +static struct vgic_its *vgic_get_its(struct kvm *kvm,
>> + struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *irq_entry)
>> +{
>> + struct kvm_msi msi = (struct kvm_msi) {
>> + .address_lo = irq_entry->msi.address_lo,
>> + .address_hi = irq_entry->msi.address_hi,
>> + .data = irq_entry->msi.data,
>> + .flags = irq_entry->msi.flags,
>> + .devid = irq_entry->msi.devid,
>> + };
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Get a reference on the LPI. If NULL, this is not a valid
>> + * translation for any of our vITSs.
>> + */
> I don't understand the relevance of the above comment.

Hmmm. The first part looks like an outdated leftover, as the ITS is not
refcounted, and we don't deal with LPIs here.

>> + return vgic_msi_to_its(kvm, &msi);
>> +}
>> +
>> +int kvm_vgic_v4_set_forwarding(struct kvm *kvm, int virq,
> @virq is the host linux irq. virq naming is a bit confusing to me.

There is plenty of irq-related code that uses this naming. In this
context, we tend to use irq for the vgic view, hwirq for the irqchip
view. How would you call this one?

>> + struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *irq_entry)
>> +{
>> + struct vgic_its *its;
>> + struct vgic_irq *irq;
>> + struct its_vlpi_map map;
>> + int ret;
>> +
> Don't you need to check that the linux irq (virq) is an LPI? You may
> encounter some VFIO "producers" for irq that are not LPIs, typically if
> we eventually upstream SPI forwarding.

That's indeed a concern. The issue is that we don't really have a way to
check this, other than following the irq_data pointers and check that
the hwirq is within a certain range. And even that doesn't guarantee
anything.

>> + if (!vgic_supports_direct_msis(kvm))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Get the ITS, and escape early on error (not a valid
>> + * doorbell for any of our vITSs).
>> + */
>> + its = vgic_get_its(kvm, irq_entry);
>> + if (IS_ERR(its))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&its->its_lock);
> wouldn't it be safer to take the its_lock before the get_its()? and even
> before the vgic_supports_direct_msis, in an unlikely case where the its
> would disappear?

How do you get a lock on the ITS before getting a pointer to it? Also,
aren't we in the context of a vcpu here (we trap to userspace, come back
via a VFIO ioctl, and arrive here)? Could the ITS actually vanish from
under our feet here? The only way to do it would be to destroy the VM.

>> +
>> + /* Perform then actual DevID/EventID -> LPI translation. */
>> + ret = vgic_its_resolve_lpi(kvm, its, irq_entry->msi.devid,
>> + irq_entry->msi.data, &irq);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Emit the mapping request. If it fails, the ITS probably
>> + * isn't v4 compatible, so let's silently bail out. Holding
>> + * the ITS lock should ensure that nothing can modify the
>> + * target vcpu.
>> + */
>> + map = (struct its_vlpi_map) {
>> + .vm = &kvm->arch.vgic.its_vm,
>> + .vpe = &irq->target_vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v3.its_vpe,
>> + .vintid = irq->intid,
>> + .properties = ((irq->priority & 0xfc) |
>> + (irq->enabled ? LPI_PROP_ENABLED : 0) |
>> + LPI_PROP_GROUP1),
> there is an inconsistency between the comment in irqchip/arm-gic-v4.h
> and this setting:
>
> * @properties: Priority and enable bits (as written in the prop table)

Which inconsistency?

> Also maybe we could use LPI_PROP_PRIORITY macro instead of 0xfc?

We could. But given that irq->priority is assigned with
LPI_PROP_PRIORITY(), we could drop the 0xfc altogether.

>> + .db_enabled = true,
>> + };
>> +
>> + ret = its_map_vlpi(virq, &map);
> Looking at its_map_lpi implementation, assuming irq_set_vcpu_affinity()
> fails, will you get a change to turn IRQ_DISABLE_LAZY again.

Good point. I'll fix this.

>> + if (ret)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + irq->hw = true;
>> + irq->host_irq = virq;
> Shouldn't we theoretically hold the irq lock here?

We hold the ITS lock. The only way to DISCARD the irq would be to issue
another command, which is not possible until we actually release the
lock. Or am I missing something?

Thanks,

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...