[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: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <Oleksandr_Andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:01:34 +0200
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.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=RZBGOB0yTTyttKdwtPTE+h6ujJQ2LdOuE0OtYnrKmg0=; b=hpVc2oKWaHIt896mHFHclYGgI+Sf1RdBQPYzsub6ENd1H0mcXBeoW0dTa5wwr908wCHgn+B/Jld8ZEq81PekFk+kc9BYa/6AsdLdNKcK5h3kkt93DnfrWoOgpCSg+oWb361la7SNnsOdJYcs+0nSSu4JDnITsgQpEVL8t6ySxjYs1AkJ81MKPA1yO3J3jGXn8dSyS9cMhm4WYtk551b8n/r0OkmpaozBw6bVIy5P5Yp2zG8Be0MvzPb0TZ4avtWsxjURKAYLiHudOkd7P1jlueDmNnn9IBgRoV/KS+JrOGrLjDjV8nTK0qn6lMU8RUAsXp+DNQG9bxPkttsSvhhJ3Q==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=joTBokRUKRaw/jfIivDfKvIzsojVBvDtdsN/prdYZHzrjO9bBKftGIYRck7byOVK+LMe++pA5U6Epp5Zbwki27reCFqb3pPapWwlokoK1XrIdOGGIk6PSCOhl07bnqBPur9Onrj3OpJlORBqdNUPPeDSTuTlwBG21aM5yNOUZGYGVGFn6+sRHySsNQ5w0vCzVJ+3zbkxxJKHN80BoYLx1JOyFxMEaXvWbsgm5gUv+OUWXcAAGRxij++Kzd8acIc1Pw5j8Xt6dEmbaR0Da26RY8OqkXZbKHkH384Re0IoRPdLGUumDADJ3kAiM+fcXirZEHaQXZEDgDxLtLrYtl9vzQ==
  • Authentication-results: citrix.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;citrix.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.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>
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:01:50 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 12.10.2021 11:38, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 12.10.21 12:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 12.10.2021 10:41, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>> 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'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

> I mean that if guest wants to crash... why
> should we stop it and try emulating something special for it?

This isn't about a guest "wanting to crash", but a driver potentially
getting mislead into thinking that it can driver a device a certain




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