[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>
  • From: Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:40:10 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.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=RlWQSlb09wP+zQ1sz9K4CIix3ZQ4bgwUujKrkjp9vU8=; b=CbbyNrFlgLlkjL2IEWX/v0cJiLtHFArK0q+hpFIqrnRMrIm66cD3yJYUinCYPsXhTogvhLAU9Pb2LU4+OBhvbHEvhCFFA4npKIOfdHeymmOctUq1Yh2YX1oEjlN4KUbp2iAQ6ufGATSTt3T8bnTH46vu+shvxkdCwHq7rcOm+V2QjUVkF255BXG0q4QkSyuoci9rxs7G+/zPY0hNkqFWrxkkD6rBhpo6kEWCiYFMVX2LSARV+PxJkIhbKZCmfaXIqKh7OCuzl5JxAWWeV2EvQRpyi31GqVTrTn6mzqKXRGI2U66Gx3gWdqSFY4V2poATpDIA3yYjcy9EBCeIKGZdJA==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=IYXrsTR5ceamoxLqivWj9gGFi37aR4SMqB/ot+qYUZAy+278D8DPmuSDy90KEimVRWQ0clA1PrjBw4y420et1A21y03sHqZ+NORScbMaxVjE+sEgAtOM5Q6e35Rc0HyKRYvHscHE4PRJ7N/zQZ5IMyMmTsFnhqPQyWje7mk1Mm0H4+mqZ5SrZUfW8Fpcd16uCRPO0gC18dHrC+G1XKksx9dTcJQT9XlEddpggm0aR8rwmV+Pm4ozUEgFqEPMPmXINSWHjvVzK9VGpWQWqc6Oq5AAr2YCORzq/jUVAezEM8wLAntSVgb7mlyv8MIzW8+UrPao056o3YcFaMEbg6Qdeg==
  • Authentication-results-original: suse.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;suse.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
  • Cc: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <Oleksandr_Andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>, 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>
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:40:27 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Nodisclaimer: true
  • Original-authentication-results: suse.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;suse.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
  • Thread-topic: [PATCH v5 01/11] xen/arm: xc_domain_ioport_permission(..) not supported on ARM.

Hi Jan,

> On 12 Oct 2021, at 10:32, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> 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".

We are emulating an ECAM PCI which does not support I/O ports so I do not
think we are (and can) expose those to guests.

Anyway I will mark this as a point to check for Rahul when he is back.


> Jan



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