Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 3/6] xen/arm: observe itargets setting in vgic_enable_irqs and vgic_disable_irqs

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stefano,

On 11/06/14 17:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> +static struct vcpu *_vgic_get_target_vcpu(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int irq)
[..]

> +struct vcpu *vgic_get_target_vcpu(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int irq)
Can you add comment explaining what are the differences between these 2 
functions?
AFAIU, the first one is assuming the rank lock is taken. If so, I would 
add an ASSERT in it. I would avoid people misuse the 2 functions.
>       case GICD_ISPENDR ... GICD_ISPENDRN:
> @@ -589,12 +625,23 @@ static int vgic_distr_mmio_write(struct vcpu *v, 
> mmio_info_t *info)
>           if ( dabt.size != 0 && dabt.size != 2 ) goto bad_width;
>           rank = vgic_rank_offset(v, 8, gicd_reg - GICD_ITARGETSR);
>           if ( rank == NULL) goto write_ignore;
> +        /* 8-bit vcpu mask for this domain */
BUG_ON(v->domain->max_vcpus > 8)? Just for enforcement.

> +        tr = (1 << v->domain->max_vcpus) - 1;
> +        tr = tr | (tr << 8) | (tr << 16) | (tr << 24);
> +        tr &= *r;
> +        /* ignore zero writes */
> +        if ( !tr )
> +            goto write_ignore;
> +        if ( dabt.size == 2 &&
> +            !((tr & 0xff) && (tr & (0xff << 8)) &&
> +             (tr & (0xff << 16)) && (tr & (0xff << 24))))
> +            goto write_ignore;
I quite difficult to understand this check. Does this check is only for 
word-access?
AFAIU, with byte-access it's possible to write 0 in itargets. For this 
case, the register may contain some 1 out of the byte offset.
Regards,

--
Julien Grall

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