From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 04/19] xen/arm: route_irq_to_guest: Check
 validity of the IRQ
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:03:58 +0100
Message-ID: <53A1E29E.9010307@linaro.org>
References: <1402935486-29136-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<1402935486-29136-5-git-send-email-julien.grall@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1406181950110.13771@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <julien.grall@linaro.org>) id 1WxL9N-0001jS-Rj
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:04:02 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id u56so1292981wes.7
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1406181950110.13771@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, tim@xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Stefano,

On 18/06/14 19:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> +/* Route an IRQ to a specific guest.
>> + * For now the vIRQ is equal to the pIRQ and only SPIs are routabled to
>> + * the guest.
>> + */
>>   int route_irq_to_guest(struct domain *d, unsigned int irq,
>>                          const char * devname)
>>   {
>> @@ -369,6 +373,20 @@ int route_irq_to_guest(struct domain *d, unsigned int irq,
>>       unsigned long flags;
>>       int retval = 0;
>>
>> +    if ( !is_routable_irq(irq) )
>> +    {
>> +        dprintk(XENLOG_G_ERR, "the IRQ%u is not routable\n", irq);
>> +        return -EINVAL;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    if ( irq > vgic_num_irqs(d) )
>> +    {
>> +        dprintk(XENLOG_G_ERR,
>> +                "the IRQ number %u is too high for domain %u (max = %u)\n",
>> +                irq, d->domain_id, vgic_num_irqs(d));
>> +        return -EINVAL;
>> +    }
>
> I think it makes sense to move the "irq > vgic_num_irqs(d)" check
> within is_routable_irq.

is_routable_irq checks that Xen is effectively able to route the IRQ to 
a guest, rather than the check "irq > vgic_num_irqs(d)" is here because 
we assume a virq == pirq.

I suspect we will have to handle virq != pirq sooner or later because 
allocate 1000 irq_pending structure unconditionally per guest is a waste 
of memory.

Furthermore, I will use it in different place is_routable_irq (see patch 
#6, #9) where we don't necessary have the domain in hand.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall