From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f43.google.com (mail-ed1-f43.google.com [209.85.208.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C748119DF53 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 08:10:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.43 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742976628; cv=none; b=Fk2DWNBUu794jpqilFwvpVYv7js26uBH70z7CGH9hjCArJRl7Ff9aG6pY8PFYyQY4ylY1rONMBS0X8LYw7MnmBsLbiMu2RyGX5SWPWscljCOIrq/ci05RpOrp944m1xwovQs4wVvUvjpXXUKmr4IN+pm0ABzy4QWPa4FP4PnROA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742976628; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tPcx2OUnS88u4uZ3rmQxImoG8Yl21ahza5/N7F+fo5s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GsonvxrK7KzXJjXz+ghp86jNdtXS2vExSyVJawu0hrHy2DI5e8/FUIx0Iuql6Lvm1Uh/dgW8GTrfa5BBokXyE0N1t+nmnbY/u9o6tmBa2egFt20dxdj762qxDjiK6EBIpes5LLbb5NBkMFQIyz7tRHfw9+HrdUC8OUzNV445/oU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=citrix.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cloud.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b=tt/oHxaa; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.43 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="tt/oHxaa" Received: by mail-ed1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5e5c9662131so10700503a12.3 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 01:10:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=citrix.com; s=google; t=1742976625; x=1743581425; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zvoZdGIIh0nptv4x2hyk3srE7837z4cLxs0snnCK7ls=; b=tt/oHxaaLS5vdqiomQt4scANeIjqufBGAtuWUEomqpWNHU9ZlDHAN4SW2yhbliKvLn ucZscRnTojdHVTsAaDVQO7MhBcokgUv8WKSUvqQCcB5FA0bvUlcA8dXXC4Z7Qwe1K7Mh Yc1vbWc3P1hADUCVMx8IQyKHg7hSxNkXgrDNQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1742976625; x=1743581425; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zvoZdGIIh0nptv4x2hyk3srE7837z4cLxs0snnCK7ls=; b=Fn8TPRnm8sNqIEWRhEfeh9DRARyYEP0QOBBiW0+rD+QqHnWnPE3FzYe9ou8lTNglnS h7M1vvWcfv/bLIkRnieRx+ERf+lCMutRMiGkjM8q550HtcenY++QglarjYrUFAL3qT1H WfDW5RGfa85eQliBhaxWUdl1g8eXELLK2twK7LeRWw31Uu1nYGQv1pOFaS3Yhd0Rwso3 FnRy290NT4MZqkR603zNY3F4P51i/127BF3/YkvuAv4r2UAKO5KHPmHnqvrghTRpPTIf sVTBQ47v7j8Akik/x+zfwg7GDbQeIrdtWlBfOZEbuYt3bIZGKIQ9cUdq/x5j/QuyN34E bi3w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWztfNj+74RQsySreDdfoM1PY981Rb74bRRnuDbsIcrfFZlOVkLIcvcvYGLUk9gJap03mOAlaSxvxQ=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyPW+IqgRycy2KYL1FrvsfWUwbjB9S+TQD9rNb0GotVUdoNYtzW 5TjUHUDjVPcUxuWNHGc0EJVxy2ae7bcIaFTnxzYLGUE7X7XiXffj4flkhfV8IoU= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncv0FgDo8A5gU9n4uBt38Jz5uT1wt7Fx9Ad1DwNQq9tk6KIxsOMgCsASjshZuDx D8VNsHIGNsy7KmxKQBS9jPOM7ZV8MYV5Hy+yXqeEWG/965WgSifn7ihzReOjvd16AjVYXaTe4pQ hurDNrmH98oJAJTTBs9lE7SZwmPoUYRUnww6chBk9yBbwXkQ/3jpD/JR1UA9JCWbnnlsl/UNzY1 fsmcEgk3gzGf/mfTZiS2LdiCQy855qZOisCeshfkUe5m/WSptDDaJluKkezQN6pYW6+siPoOfLI 5gEIAPW6XVWeIb8xL5UJNvI6BrqH3rjIB2taKFoKnebfswY6Og== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFk/oQ4dEeG6SP1NjnX7dgOQ//K7a8iza3+Ms4rsYBb+Te5rd3AJ8dLKHMNssy8DXdKiQsVgA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:4306:b0:5dc:c531:e5c0 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5ebcd519e7fmr18000389a12.27.1742976624991; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 01:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([84.78.159.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with UTF8SMTPSA id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5ebccfb0e97sm9080244a12.45.2025.03.26.01.10.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 26 Mar 2025 01:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:10:23 +0100 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Daniel Gomez , =?utf-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBHcm/Dnw==?= , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] PCI/MSI: Convert pci_msi_ignore_mask to per MSI domain flag Message-ID: References: <20250320210741.GA1099701@bhelgaas> <846c80f8-b80f-49fd-8a50-3fe8a473b8ec@suse.com> <87y0wtzg0z.ffs@tglx> <87v7rxzct0.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87v7rxzct0.ffs@tglx> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 10:20:43AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25 2025 at 09:11, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 24 2025 at 20:18, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 07:58:14PM +0100, Daniel Gomez wrote: > >>> The issue is that info appears to be uninitialized. So, this worked for me: > >> > >> Indeed, irq_domain->host_data is NULL, there's no msi_domain_info. As > >> this is x86, I was expecting x86 ot always use > >> x86_init_dev_msi_info(), but that doesn't seem to be the case. I > >> would like to better understand this. > > > > Indeed. On x86 this should not happen at all. On architectures, which do > > not use (hierarchical) interrupt domains, it will return NULL. > > > > So I really want to understand why this happens on x86 before such a > > "fix" is deployed. > > So after staring at it some more it's clear. Without XEN, the domain > returned is the MSI parent domain, which is the vector domain in that > setup. That does not have a domain info set. But on legacy architectures > there is not even a domain. > > It's really wonderful that we have a gazillion ways to manage the > backends of PCI/MSI.... > > So none of the suggested pointer checks will cover it correctly. Though > there is already a function which allows to query MSI domain flags > independent of the underlying insanity. Sorry for not catching it in > review. > > Untested patch below. As I'm getting reports of other people hitting this issue, is there anything that needs to be done from my side to get the fix into linux-next? Thanks, Roger.