Re: [PATCH v2 11/17] xen/riscv: implement p2m_set_entry() and __p2m_set_entry()

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 07.07.2025 18:10, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> On 7/7/25 5:15 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 07.07.2025 17:00, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> On 7/7/25 2:53 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 07.07.2025 13:46, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>>>> On 7/7/25 9:20 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 04.07.2025 17:01, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/1/25 3:49 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10.06.2025 15:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +    panic("%s: isn't implemented for now\n", __func__);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +    return false;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>> For this function in particular, though: Besides the "p2me" in the name
>>>>>>>> being somewhat odd (supposedly page table entries here are simply 
>>>>>>>> pte_t),
>>>>>>>> how is this going to be different from pte_is_valid()?
>>>>>>> pte_is_valid() is checking a real bit of PTE, but p2me_is_valid() is 
>>>>>>> checking
>>>>>>> what is a type stored in the radix tree (p2m->p2m_types):
>>>>>>>       /*
>>>>>>>        * In the case of the P2M, the valid bit is used for other 
>>>>>>> purpose. Use
>>>>>>>        * the type to check whether an entry is valid.
>>>>>>>        */
>>>>>>>       static inline bool p2me_is_valid(struct p2m_domain *p2m, pte_t 
>>>>>>> pte)
>>>>>>>       {
>>>>>>>           return p2m_type_radix_get(p2m, pte) != p2m_invalid;
>>>>>>>       }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is done to track which page was modified by a guest.
>>>>>> But then (again) the name doesn't convey what the function does.
>>>>> Then probably p2me_type_is_valid(struct p2m_domain *p2m, pte_t pte) would 
>>>>> better.
>>>> For P2M type checks please don't invent new naming, but use what both x86
>>>> and Arm are already using. Note how we already have p2m_is_valid() in that
>>>> set. Just that it's not doing what you want here.
>>> Hm, why not doing what I want? p2m_is_valid() verifies if P2M entry is 
>>> valid.
>>> And in here it is checked if P2M pte is valid from P2M point of view by 
>>> checking
>>> the type in radix tree and/or in reserved PTEs bits (just to remind we have 
>>> only 2
>>> free bits for type).
>> Because this is how it's defined on x86:
>>
>> #define p2m_is_valid(_t)    (p2m_to_mask(_t) & \
>>                               (P2M_RAM_TYPES | p2m_to_mask(p2m_mmio_direct)))
>>
>> I.e. more strict that simply "!= p2m_invalid". And I think such predicates
>> would better be uniform across architectures, such that in principle they
>> might also be usable in common code (as we already do with p2m_is_foreign()).
> 
> Yeah, Arm isn't so strict in definition of p2m_is_valid() and it seems like
> x86 and Arm have different understanding what is valid.
> 
> Except what mentioned in the comment that grant types aren't considered valid
> for x86 (and shouldn't be the same then for Arm?), it isn't clear why x86's
> p2m_is_valid() is stricter then Arm's one and if other arches should be also
> so strict.

Arm's p2m_is_valid() is entirely different (and imo misnamed, but arguably one
could also consider x86'es to require a better name). It's a local helper, not
a P2M type checking predicate. With that in mind, you may of course follow
Arm's model, but in the longer run we may need to do something about the name
collision then.

>>> The only use case I can think of is that the caller
>>> might try to map the remaining GFNs again. But that doesn’t seem very 
>>> useful,
>>> if|p2m_set_entry()| wasn’t able to map the full range, it likely indicates 
>>> a serious
>>> issue, and retrying would probably result in the same error.
>>>
>>> The same applies to rolling back the state. It wouldn’t be difficult to add 
>>> a local
>>> array to track all modified PTEs and then use it to revert the state if 
>>> needed.
>>> But again, what would the caller do after the rollback? At this point, it 
>>> still seems
>>> like the best option is simply to|panic(). |
>>>
>>> Basically, I don’t see or understand the cases where knowing how many GFNs 
>>> were
>>> successfully mapped, or whether a rollback was performed, would really help 
>>> — because
>>> in most cases, I don’t have a better option than just calling|panic()| at 
>>> the end.
>> panic()-ing is of course only a last resort. Anything related to domain 
>> handling
>> would better crash only the domain in question. And even that only if 
>> suitable
>> error handling isn't possible.
> 
> And if there is no still any runnable domain available, for example, we are 
> creating
> domain and some p2m mapping is called? Will it be enough just ignore to boot 
> this domain?
> If yes, then it is enough to return only error code without returning how 
> many GFNs were
> mapped or rollbacking as domain won't be ran anyway.

During domain creation all you need to do is return an error. But when you 
write a
generic function that's also (going to be) used at domain runtime, you need to
consider what to do there in case of partial success.

>>> For example, if I call|map_regions_p2mt()| for an MMIO region described in 
>>> a device
>>> tree node, and the mapping fails partway through, I’m left with two 
>>> options: either
>>> ignore the device (if it's not essential for Xen or guest functionality) 
>>> and continue
>>>    booting; in which case I’d need to perform a rollback, and simply 
>>> knowing the number
>>> of successfully mapped GFNs may not be enough or, more likely, just panic.
>> Well, no. For example, before even trying to map you could check that the 
>> range
>> of P2M entries covered is all empty.
> 
> Could it be that they aren't all empty? Then it seems like we have 
> overlapping and we can't
> just do a mapping, right?

Possibly that would simply mean to return an error, yes.

> Won't be this procedure consume a lot of time as it is needed to go through 
> each page
> tables for each entry.

Well, you're free to suggest a clean alternative without doing so.

>>   _Then_ you know how to correctly roll back.
>> And yes, doing so may not even require passing back information on how much 
>> of
>> a region was successfully mapped.
> 
> If P2M entries were empty before start of the mapping then it is enough to 
> just go
> through the same range (sgfn,nr,smfn) and just clean them, right?

Yes, what else would "roll back" mean in that case?

Jan