Re: [Xen-devel] Dealing with non-existent BDF devices in VT-d and in the hardware.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 19.03.14 at 13:57, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:32:31AM +0000, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
>> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote on 2014-03-18:
>> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 01:03:00AM +0000, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
>> > I think there are two issues here:
>> > 
>> > a) Missing device assigments via groups. That should be done irregardless
>> >    if the device / hardware is buggy.
>> >
>> 
>> Yes, this is missing.
>> 
>> > b) Buggy devices like the IDT bridge that I see. That is a seperate issue 
>> > - 
> and
>> >    we just discussion if we want to inject that in the VT-d (or AMD-VI) 
>> > what
>> >    would be the mechanism to do that.
>> 
>> The question is that device 08:00.0 doesn't exist in your platform, you only 
> saw the BDF in the DMA transaction. How can you add a non-exist device to a 
> group? 
> 
> Why do I need to add it to a group? The patch I posted (see first email in 
> this thread)
> just made a fake PCI device in the Xen hypervisor. But I don't see libxl nor
> QEMU doing any group operations - so why are they required? If I just bundle
> all of the PCI devices underneath that bridge to the guest it should be OK, 
> shouldn't it?

It should. You're in trouble if (by mistake) you don't pass them all,
and to avoid that is what the grouping seems to have been intended
for. The fact that only xend used it (and even then only for checking
rather to enforce the grouping) doesn't help it of course. But that
grouping issue is orthogonal to your issue, it's just that the group
assignment (if it were there) could take care of the assignment part
of your issue - the create-a-fake-device part would remain.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel