lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] PCI: Introduce flag for detached virtual functions
From
Date
On 8/12/20 4:32 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 15:21:11 -0400
> Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> s390x has the notion of providing VFs to the kernel in a manner
>> where the associated PF is inaccessible other than via firmware.
>> These are not treated as typical VFs and access to them is emulated
>> by underlying firmware which can still access the PF. After
>> abafbc55 however these detached VFs were no longer able to work
>> with vfio-pci as the firmware does not provide emulation of the
>> PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY bit. In this case, let's explicitly recognize
>> these detached VFs so that vfio-pci can allow memory access to
>> them again.
>>
>
> Might as well include a fixes tag too.
>
> Fixes: abafbc551fdd ("vfio-pci: Invalidate mmaps and block MMIO access on disabled memory")
>
> You might also extend the sha1 in the log to 12 chars as well, or
> replace it with a reference to the fixes tag.
>
Sure.

>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
..snip..
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
>> index 8355306..23a6972 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pci.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
>> @@ -445,6 +445,7 @@ struct pci_dev {
>> unsigned int is_probed:1; /* Device probing in progress */
>> unsigned int link_active_reporting:1;/* Device capable of reporting link active */
>> unsigned int no_vf_scan:1; /* Don't scan for VFs after IOV enablement */
>> + unsigned int detached_vf:1; /* VF without local PF access */
>
> Is there too much implicit knowledge in defining a "detached VF"? For
> example, why do we know that we can skip the portion of
> vfio_config_init() that copies the vendor and device IDs from the
> struct pci_dev into the virtual config space? It's true on s390x, but
> I think that's because we know that firmware emulates those registers
> for us. We also skip the INTx pin register sanity checking. Do we do
> that because we haven't installed the broken device into an s390x
> system? Because we know firmware manages that for us too? Or simply
> because s390x doesn't support INTx anyway, and therefore it's another
> architecture implicit decision?

That's a fair point. This was also discussed (overnight for me) in
another thread that this patch is very s390-specific. It doesn't have
to be, we could also emulate these additional pieces to make things more
general-purpose here.

>
> If detached_vf is really equivalent to is_virtfn for all cases that
> don't care about referencing physfn on the pci_dev, then we should
> probably have a macro to that effect. Otherwise, if we're just trying
> to describe that the memory bit of the command register is
> unimplemented but always enabled, like a VF, should we specifically
> describe that attribute instead? If so, should we instead do that with
> pci_dev_flags_t? Thanks,

Well, that's the particular issue that got us looking at this but I'm
not so sure we wouldn't find further oddities later, hence the desire
for a more general-purpose bit.

>
> Alex
>
>> pci_dev_flags_t dev_flags;
>> atomic_t enable_cnt; /* pci_enable_device has been called */
>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-13 15:10    [W:0.116 / U:0.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site