Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Clear pending bit in guest memory after synchronization | From | Zenghui Yu <> | Date | Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:11:37 +0800 |
| |
Hi Marc,
On 2020/3/31 16:07, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Hi Zenghui, > > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:12:45 +0800 > Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> wrote: > >> When LPI support is enabled at redistributor level, VGIC will potentially >> load the correspond LPI penging table and sync it into the pending_latch. >> To avoid keeping the 'consumed' pending bits lying around in guest memory >> (though they're not used), let's clear them after synchronization. >> >> The similar work had been done in vgic_v3_lpi_sync_pending_status(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> >> --- >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c >> index d53d34a33e35..905760bfa404 100644 >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c >> @@ -435,6 +435,7 @@ static int its_sync_lpi_pending_table(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> >> for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) { >> int byte_offset, bit_nr; >> + bool status; >> >> byte_offset = intids[i] / BITS_PER_BYTE; >> bit_nr = intids[i] % BITS_PER_BYTE; >> @@ -447,22 +448,32 @@ static int its_sync_lpi_pending_table(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> ret = kvm_read_guest_lock(vcpu->kvm, >> pendbase + byte_offset, >> &pendmask, 1); >> - if (ret) { >> - kfree(intids); >> - return ret; >> - } >> + if (ret) >> + goto out; >> last_byte_offset = byte_offset; >> } >> >> + status = pendmask & (1 << bit_nr); >> + >> irq = vgic_get_irq(vcpu->kvm, NULL, intids[i]); >> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->irq_lock, flags); >> - irq->pending_latch = pendmask & (1U << bit_nr); >> + irq->pending_latch = status; >> vgic_queue_irq_unlock(vcpu->kvm, irq, flags); >> vgic_put_irq(vcpu->kvm, irq); >> + >> + if (status) { >> + /* clear consumed data */ >> + pendmask &= ~(1 << bit_nr); >> + ret = kvm_write_guest_lock(vcpu->kvm, >> + pendbase + byte_offset, >> + &pendmask, 1); >> + if (ret) >> + goto out; >> + } >> } >> >> +out: >> kfree(intids); >> - >> return ret; >> } >> > > I've been thinking about this, and I wonder why we don't simply clear > the whole pending table instead of carefully wiping it one bit at a > time. My reasoning is that if a LPI isn't mapped, then it cannot be made > pending the first place.
A writing to GICR_CTLR.EnableLPIs can happen in parallel with MAPTI/INT command sequence, where the new LPI is mapped to *this* vcpu and made pending, wrong? I think commit 7d8b44c54e0c had described it in detail.
But thinking that we cache the pending bit in pending_latch (instead of writing the corresponding bit in guest memory) when a LPI is made pending, it seems to be safe to clear the whole pending table here.
> > And I think there is a similar issue in vgic_v3_lpi_sync_pending_status(). > Why sync something back from the pending table when the LPI wasn't > mapped yet?
vgic_v3_lpi_sync_pending_status() can be called on the ITE restore path: vgic_its_restore_ite/vgic_add_lpi/vgic_v3_lpi_sync_pending_status. We should rely on it to sync the pending bit from guest memory (which was saved on the source side).
> This seems pretty bizarre, as the GITS_TRANSLATER spec says > that the write to this register is ignored when: > > "- The EventID is mapped to an Interrupt Translation Table and the > EventID is within the range specified by MAPD on page 5-107, but the > EventID is unmapped." > > (with the added bonus in the form of a type: the first instance of > "EventID" here should obviously be "DeviceID").
;-)
Thanks, Zenghui
|  |