Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/hvm: Add per-vcpu evtchn upcalls

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/11/14 14:50, Paul Durrant wrote:
> HVM guests have always been confined to using the domain callback
> via (see HVM_PARAM_CALLBACK_IRQ) to receive event notifications
> which is an IOAPIC vector and is only used if the event channel is
> bound to vcpu 0.
> This patch adds a new HVM op allowing a guest to specify a local
> APIC vector to use as an upcall notification for a specific vcpu.
> This therefore allows a guest which sets a vector for a vcpu
> other than 0 to then bind event channels to that vcpu.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Substantially more minimal changes than I would have guessed!

> ---
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c          |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  xen/arch/x86/hvm/irq.c          |    9 +++++++++
>  xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vcpu.h  |    1 +
>  xen/include/public/hvm/hvm_op.h |   16 ++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 61 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> index 78f519d..684e666 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> @@ -5458,6 +5458,36 @@ static int hvmop_destroy_ioreq_server(
>      return rc;
>  }
>  
> +static int hvmop_set_evtchn_upcall_vector(
> +    XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector_t) uop)
> +{
> +    xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector_t op;
> +    struct domain *d;
> +    struct vcpu *v;
> +    int rc;
> +
> +    if ( copy_from_guest(&op, uop, 1) )
> +        return -EFAULT;
> +
> +    d = rcu_lock_current_domain();
> +
> +    rc = -EINVAL;
> +    if ( !is_hvm_domain(d) )
> +        goto out;
> +

ENOENT, to help differentiate the various failures.

> +    if ( op.vcpu >= d->max_vcpus || (v = d->vcpu[op.vcpu]) == NULL )
> +        goto out;
> +

Need to verify that op.vector > 0xf.  The first 16 vectors are not valid
for delivery via the LAPIC.

> +    printk(XENLOG_G_INFO "%pv: %s %u\n", v, __func__, op.vector);
> +
> +    v->arch.hvm_vcpu.evtchn_upcall_vector = op.vector;
> +    rc = 0;
> +
> + out:
> +    rcu_unlock_domain(d);
> +    return rc;
> +}
> +
>  #define HVMOP_op_mask 0xff
>  
>  long do_hvm_op(unsigned long op, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
> @@ -5499,6 +5529,11 @@ long do_hvm_op(unsigned long op, 
> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
>              guest_handle_cast(arg, xen_hvm_destroy_ioreq_server_t));
>          break;
>      
> +    case HVMOP_set_evtchn_upcall_vector:
> +        rc = hvmop_set_evtchn_upcall_vector(
> +            guest_handle_cast(arg, xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector_t));
> +        break;
> +    
>      case HVMOP_set_param:
>      case HVMOP_get_param:
>      {
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/irq.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/irq.c
> index 35f4f94..3e4c0b4 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/irq.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/irq.c
> @@ -152,6 +152,13 @@ void hvm_isa_irq_deassert(
>      spin_unlock(&d->arch.hvm_domain.irq_lock);
>  }
>  
> +static void hvm_set_upcall_irq(struct vcpu *v)
> +{
> +    uint8_t vector = v->arch.hvm_vcpu.evtchn_upcall_vector;
> +
> +    vlapic_set_irq(vcpu_vlapic(v), vector, 0);
> +}
> +
>  static void hvm_set_callback_irq_level(struct vcpu *v)
>  {
>      struct domain *d = v->domain;
> @@ -220,6 +227,8 @@ void hvm_assert_evtchn_irq(struct vcpu *v)
>  
>      if ( is_hvm_pv_evtchn_vcpu(v) )
>          vcpu_kick(v);
> +    else if ( v->arch.hvm_vcpu.evtchn_upcall_vector != 0 )
> +        hvm_set_upcall_irq(v);
>      else if ( v->vcpu_id == 0 )
>          hvm_set_callback_irq_level(v);
>  }
> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vcpu.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vcpu.h
> index 01e0665..edd4523 100644
> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vcpu.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vcpu.h
> @@ -160,6 +160,7 @@ struct hvm_vcpu {
>      } u;
>  
>      struct tasklet      assert_evtchn_irq_tasklet;
> +    u8                  evtchn_upcall_vector;
>  
>      struct nestedvcpu   nvcpu;
>  
> diff --git a/xen/include/public/hvm/hvm_op.h b/xen/include/public/hvm/hvm_op.h
> index eeb0a60..33ccf45 100644
> --- a/xen/include/public/hvm/hvm_op.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/hvm/hvm_op.h
> @@ -369,6 +369,22 @@ 
> DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_hvm_set_ioreq_server_state_t);
>  
>  #endif /* defined(__XEN__) || defined(__XEN_TOOLS__) */

This new hvmop looks like it should live in an x86 specific section.

>  
> +/*
> + * HVMOP_set_evtchn_upcall_vector: Set a <vector> that should be used for 
> event
> + *                                 channel upcalls on the specified <vcpu>. 
> If set,
> + *                                 this vector will be used in preference to 
> the
> + *                                 domain callback via (see 
> HVM_PARAM_CALLBACK_IRQ)
> + *                                 and hence allows HVM guests to bind event
> + *                                 event channels to a vcpu other than 0.
> + */
> +#define HVMOP_set_evtchn_upcall_vector 23
> +struct xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector {
> +    uint32_t vcpu;
> +    uint8_t vector;

Is it plausible that a device model might want to call this hypercall on
a domain which it controls?  I don't believe so, but the question is
worth considering with a view to adding a domid parameter before the API
is set in stone.

~Andrew

> +};
> +typedef struct xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector 
> xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector_t;
> +DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector_t);
> +
>  #endif /* __XEN_PUBLIC_HVM_HVM_OP_H__ */
>  
>  /*



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