|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] vpci/rebar: Remove registers when init_rebar() fails
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 03:32:13PM +0800, Jiqian Chen wrote:
> When init_rebar() fails, the new codes will try to hide Rebar
> capability, so it can't rely on vpci_deassign_device() to remove
> all Rebar related registers anymore, those registers must be
> cleaned up in failure path of init_rebar.
>
> To do that, use a vpci_register array to record all Rebar registers
> and call vpci_remove_register() to remove registers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiqian Chen <Jiqian.Chen@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> xen/drivers/vpci/rebar.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c | 14 --------------
> xen/include/xen/vpci.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/drivers/vpci/rebar.c b/xen/drivers/vpci/rebar.c
> index 7c53ee031887..5f2f9978feb9 100644
> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/rebar.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/rebar.c
> @@ -51,8 +51,11 @@ static void cf_check rebar_ctrl_write(const struct pci_dev
> *pdev,
>
> static int cf_check init_rebar(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> {
> + int rc = 0;
> uint32_t ctrl;
> unsigned int nbars;
> + unsigned int reg_index = 0;
> + struct vpci_register registers[VPCI_CAP_MAX_REGISTER];
I'm not sure I like this approach much, as it seems to be quite
cumbersome. Iff we really want to go that route I would recommend
that you use a much lighter structure here, struct vpci_register has a
bunch of fields that are not used at all by the purposes here. You
just want a struct with and offset and a size fields.
> unsigned int rebar_offset = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev->sbdf,
>
> PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_REBAR);
>
> @@ -70,17 +73,17 @@ static int cf_check init_rebar(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> nbars = MASK_EXTR(ctrl, PCI_REBAR_CTRL_NBAR_MASK);
> for ( unsigned int i = 0; i < nbars; i++ )
> {
> - int rc;
> + const unsigned int offset = rebar_offset + PCI_REBAR_CTRL(i);
> struct vpci_bar *bar;
> unsigned int index;
>
> - ctrl = pci_conf_read32(pdev->sbdf, rebar_offset + PCI_REBAR_CTRL(i));
> + ctrl = pci_conf_read32(pdev->sbdf, offset);
> index = ctrl & PCI_REBAR_CTRL_BAR_IDX;
> if ( index >= PCI_HEADER_NORMAL_NR_BARS )
> {
> printk(XENLOG_ERR "%pd %pp: too big BAR number %u in
> REBAR_CTRL\n",
> pdev->domain, &pdev->sbdf, index);
> - continue;
> + goto fail;
> }
>
> bar = &pdev->vpci->header.bars[index];
> @@ -88,24 +91,19 @@ static int cf_check init_rebar(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> {
> printk(XENLOG_ERR "%pd %pp: BAR%u is not in memory space\n",
> pdev->domain, &pdev->sbdf, index);
> - continue;
> + goto fail;
> }
>
> rc = vpci_add_register(pdev->vpci, vpci_hw_read32, rebar_ctrl_write,
> - rebar_offset + PCI_REBAR_CTRL(i), 4, bar);
> + offset, 4, bar);
> if ( rc )
> {
> printk(XENLOG_ERR "%pd %pp: BAR%u fail to add reg of REBAR_CTRL
> rc=%d\n",
> pdev->domain, &pdev->sbdf, index, rc);
> - /*
> - * Ideally we would hide the ReBar capability on error, but code
> - * for doing so still needs to be written. Use continue instead
> - * to keep any already setup register hooks, as returning an
> - * error will cause the hardware domain to get unmediated access
> - * to all device registers.
> - */
> - continue;
> + goto fail;
> }
> + registers[reg_index].offset = offset;
> + registers[reg_index++].size = 4;
>
> bar->resizable_sizes =
> MASK_EXTR(pci_conf_read32(pdev->sbdf,
> @@ -117,6 +115,15 @@ static int cf_check init_rebar(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> }
>
> return 0;
> +
> + fail:
> + for ( unsigned int i = 0; i < reg_index; i++ )
> + if ( vpci_remove_register(pdev->vpci,
> + registers[i].offset,
> + registers[i].size) )
> + continue;
Keep in mind it's fine to remove registers that are not there, iow you
could possibly do:
for ( unsigned int i = 0; i < nbars; i++ )
if ( vpci_remove_register(pdev->vpci, rebar_offset + PCI_REBAR_CTRL(i),
4) )
continue;
And it would be fine IMO, without the need to store exactly which
registers have been added. It's not like there's much that can be
done from vpci_remove_register() failing in this context.
In fact you can remove the __must_check from vpci_remove_register(), I
don't think it's helpful at all.
> +
> + return rc;
> }
> REGISTER_VPCI_EXTEND_CAP(PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_REBAR, init_rebar,
> VPCI_PRIORITY_LOW);
>
> diff --git a/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c b/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c
> index a8362e46e097..ea81d8cc9604 100644
> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c
> @@ -21,20 +21,6 @@
> #include <xen/vpci.h>
> #include <xen/vmap.h>
>
> -/* Internal struct to store the emulated PCI registers. */
> -struct vpci_register {
> - vpci_read_t *read;
> - vpci_write_t *write;
> - unsigned int size;
> - unsigned int offset;
> - void *private;
> - struct list_head node;
> - uint32_t ro_mask;
> - uint32_t rw1c_mask;
> - uint32_t rsvdp_mask;
> - uint32_t rsvdz_mask;
> -};
> -
> #ifdef __XEN__
> extern vpci_capability_t *const __start_vpci_array[];
> extern vpci_capability_t *const __end_vpci_array[];
> diff --git a/xen/include/xen/vpci.h b/xen/include/xen/vpci.h
> index fa13397ae409..19a036c22165 100644
> --- a/xen/include/xen/vpci.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/vpci.h
> @@ -214,6 +214,21 @@ struct vpci_vcpu {
> bool rom_only : 1;
> };
>
> +#define VPCI_CAP_MAX_REGISTER 10
That 10 is kind of arbitrary...
Thanks, Roger.
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |