[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 15/16] xen/vtd: prevent from assign the device with shared rmrr
On 9/6/2015 11:19 AM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c index 836aed5..038776a 100644 --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c @@ -2310,12 +2310,16 @@ static int intel_iommu_assign_device( PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) == devfn && rmrr->scope.devices_cnt > 1 ) { + u32 relaxed = flag & XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED; + printk(XENLOG_G_ERR VTDPREFIX - " cannot assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u" + " Currently its %s to assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u" " with shared RMRR at %"PRIx64" for Dom%d.\n", + relaxed ? "disallowed" : "risky",This debug message is backwards? Yeah. Its indeed like this, relaxed ? "risky" : "disallowed" But lets wait Jan's comment to step next. seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn), rmrr->base_address, d->domain_id); - return -EPERM; + if ( !relaxed ) + return -EPERM; } } Tamas, do you actually mean to assign these to _different_guests, considering the log fragment above?)No, I actually want to assign them to the same domain. The domain creation fails with either of those devices specified for passthrough whether they are to be attached to the same domain or not.Tamas, could you try this in your case?Took me a while to find the xl config option to set this flag (pci = [ 'sbdf, rdm_policy=strict/relaxed' ]) but now it works as expected! I remember 'relaxed' is a default value so 'rdm_policy' can't be dropped here if you like this. Thanks Tiejun _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |