[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [XEN PATCH v12 2/7] x86/pvh: Allow (un)map_pirq when dom0 is PVH
On 2024/7/31 21:03, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 01:39:40PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 31.07.2024 13:29, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:55:35AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 31.07.2024 11:37, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:02:01AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 31.07.2024 10:51, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>>>>>> I agree with (a), but I don't think enabling PVH dom0 usage of the >>>>>>> hypercalls should be gated on this. As said a PV dom0 is already >>>>>>> capable of issuing PHYSDEVOP_{,un}map_pirq operations against a PVH >>>>>>> domU. >>>>>> >>>>>> Okay, I can accept that as an intermediate position. We ought to deny >>>>>> such requests at some point though for PVH domains, the latest in the >>>>>> course of making vPCI work there. >>>>> >>>>> Hm, once physdev_map_pirq() works as intended against PVH domains, I >>>>> don't see why we would prevent the usage of PHYSDEVOP_{,un}map_pirq >>>>> against such domains. >>>> >>>> Well. If it can be made work as intended, then I certainly agree. However, >>>> without even the concept of pIRQ in PVH I'm having a hard time seeing how >>>> it can be made work. Iirc you were advocating for us to not introduce pIRQ >>>> into PVH. >>> >>> From what I'm seeing here the intention is to expose >>> PHYSDEVOP_{,un}map_pirq to PVH dom0, so there must be some notion of >>> pIRQs or akin in a PVH dom0? Even if only for passthrough needs. >> >> Only in so far as it is an abstract, handle-like value pertaining solely >> to the target domain. >> >>>> Maybe you're thinking of re-using the sub-ops, requiring PVH domains to >>>> pass in GSIs? >>> >>> I think that was one my proposals, to either introduce a new >>> hypercall that takes a GSI, or to modify the PHYSDEVOP_{,un}map_pirq >>> in an ABI compatible way so that semantically the field could be a GSI >>> rather than a pIRQ. We however would also need a way to reference an >>> MSI entry. >> >> Of course. >> >>> My main concern is not with pIRQs by itself, pIRQs are just an >>> abstract way to reference interrupts, my concern and what I wanted to >>> avoid on PVH is being able to route pIRQs over event channels. IOW: >>> have interrupts from physical devices delivered over event channels. >> >> Oh, I might have slightly misunderstood your intentions then. > > My intention would be to not even use pIRQs at all, in order to avoid > the temptation of the guest itself managing interrupts using > hypercalls, hence I would have preferred that abstract interface to be > something else. > > Maybe we could even expose the Xen IRQ space directly, and just use > that as interrupt handles, but since I'm not the one doing the work > I'm not sure it's fair to ask for something that would require more > changes internally to Xen. > >>>> I think I suggested something along these lines also to >>>> Jiqian, yet with the now intended exposure to !has_pirq() domains I'm >>>> not sure this could be made work reliably. >>> >>> I'm afraid I've been lacking behind on reviewing those series. >>> >>>> Which reminds me of another question I had: What meaning does the pirq >>>> field have right now, if Dom0 would issue the request against a PVH DomU? >>>> What meaning will it have for a !has_pirq() HVM domain? >>> >>> The pirq field could be a way to reference an interrupt. It doesn't >>> need to be exposed to the PVH domU at all, but it's a way for the >>> device model to identify which interrupt should be mapped to which >>> domain. >> >> Since pIRQ-s are per-domain, _that_ kind of association won't be >> helped. But yes, as per above it could serve as an abstract handle- >> like value. > > I would be fine with doing the interrupt bindings based on IRQs > instead of pIRQs, but I'm afraid that would require more changes to > hypercalls and Xen internals. > > At some point I need to work on a new interface to do passthrough, so > that we can remove the usage of domctls from QEMU. That might be a > good opportunity to switch from using pIRQs. Thanks for your input, but I may be a bit behind you with my knowledge and can't fully understand the discussion. How should I modify this question later? Should I add a new hypercall specifically for passthrough? Or if it is to prevent the (un)map from being used for PVH guests, can I just add a new function to check if the subject domain is a PVH type? Like is_pvh_domain(). > > Thanks, Roger. -- Best regards, Jiqian Chen.
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |