[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v5 01/11] xen/arm: xc_domain_ioport_permission(..) not supported on ARM.

  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>
  • From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <Oleksandr_Andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:38:29 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=epam.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=epam.com; dkim=pass header.d=epam.com; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=Nadob0BJi1S5cYNUrOWwvfMRuGbbvlMx+zTvAkdCFDM=; b=WvEtlMLhLD617i/N7ihPMrIY2LTPxrJU2pgZhsUuCjYE49670moiwQKggX7P+4fpLIdV9rxlhdoAVhwtkbFRsX3tNjXIqTyl/y8sdwatAIM0bi+Aj64Kj3f6n/yOEOawjUwzx+IfhrDMW4+pb8CsCWO/ZeE+f2GWyEfg2ct+Fo99LZFMS2JB8ztjp+PlqujkKr85vTcEOOBDENdw3azBTRkO5/Ktjgp3NDtWGTI6XucNBFVd9evhxfo1wL3mnx/v+zKZbLFw4lD29jVQaBp8BvuBjV5dOiaJWHronjaAqM7PgekLw8yy+0J7FUNMvv4tNs1mgfk3X6bHa5P4+3vGow==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=a2k2YQlQh44fZjBLVj8/ejiyeDEElNCwFZsti/jFbuCnusa/VXWabGqcTAwL/fYV62+tkHIdYxaWd2FV1N925Dp9xdulmYTkJZFxqWiy5M1g99QslGsiCYFNq+yMVevXL33KYWOxj1tY7bQd7RPlSrv6RIV704z+IH0Gs2nImeuHhM9BiVbXSxkC+oC33RbhIaZWPBz+7jQhWzgjyH+6Ch2ndXycOIN12INPnIB2tCeIvNWhm7JrOdam2KpJxN05WKyzVZB4NqXpfEi2yb+I9GtqFdWb/9F3gkbjD/8zOIihx1sRpzgBxlXPppL+JbWUX+dkv0X86+9HHOZUzCLw4Q==
  • Authentication-results: suse.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;suse.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=epam.com;
  • Cc: Rahul Singh <rahul.singh@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andre Przywara <Andre.Przywara@xxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Oleksandr Andrushchenko <Oleksandr_Andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:39:16 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Thread-topic: [PATCH v5 01/11] xen/arm: xc_domain_ioport_permission(..) not supported on ARM.

On 12.10.21 12:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.10.2021 10:41, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> Hi Jan,
>>> On 12 Oct 2021, at 09:29, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 11.10.2021 19:11, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Oct 2021, at 17:32, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 02:16:19PM +0000, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11 Oct 2021, at 14:57, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> I think the commit message needs to at least be expanded in order to
>>>>>>> contain the information provided here. It might also be helpful to
>>>>>>> figure out whether we would have to handle IO port accesses in the
>>>>>>> future on Arm, or if it's fine to just ignore them.
>>>>>> All our investigations and tests have been done without supporting it
>>>>>> without any issues so this is not a critical feature (most devices can
>>>>>> be operated without using the I/O ports).
>>>>> IMO we should let the users know they attempted to use a device with
>>>>> BARs in the IO space, and that those BARs won't be accessible which
>>>>> could make the device not function as expected.
>>>>> Do you think it would be reasonable to attempt the hypercall on Arm
>>>>> also, and in case of error (on Arm) just print a warning message and
>>>>> continue operations as normal?
>>>> I think this would lead to a warning printed on lots of devices where in
>>>> fact there would be no issues.
>>>> If this is an issue for a device driver because it cannot operate without
>>>> I/O ports, this will be raised by the driver inside the guest.
>>> On what basis would the driver complain? The kernel might know of
>>> the MMIO equivalent for ports, and hence might allow the driver
>>> to properly obtain whatever is needed to later access the ports.
>>> Just that the port accesses then wouldn't work (possibly crashing
>>> the guest, or making it otherwise misbehave).
>> As ECAM and Arm does not support I/O ports, a driver requesting access
>> to them would get an error back.
>> So in practice it is not possible to try to access the ioports as there is no
>> way on arm to use them (no instructions).
>> A driver could misbehave by ignoring the fact that ioports are not there but
>> I am not quite sure how we could solve that as it would be a bug in the 
>> driver.
> The minimal thing I'd suggest (or maybe you're doing this already)
> would be to expose such BARs to the guest as r/o zero, rather than
> letting their port nature "shine through".
If we have the same, but baremetal then which entity disallows
those BARs to shine? I mean that if guest wants to crash... why
should we stop it and try emulating something special for it?
> Jan



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.