WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen, vtd: Fix device check for devices behind PC

>>> On 05.09.11 at 16:56, George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 01.09.11 at 16:20, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On some systems, requests devices behind a PCIe-to-PCI bridge all
>>> appear to the IOMMU as though they come from from slot 0, function
>>> 0 on that device; so the mapping code much punch a hole for X:0.0
>>> in the IOMMU for such devices.  When punching the hole, if that device
>>> has already been mapped once, we simply need to check ownership to
>>> make sure it's legal.  To do so, domain_context_mapping_one() will look
>>> up the device for the mapping with pci_get_pdev() and look for the owner.
>>>
>>> However, if there is no device in X:0.0, this look up will fail.
>>
>> Was it really that there was no device at all at X:0.0, or rather that
>> Xen just didn't know about the device (because Dom0 failed to notify
>> Xen, as could happen in the 2.6.18-derived trees up to pretty
>> recently)?
> 
> Don't know for sure; this was a partner that turned this up through
> our beta-test program.  But IIRC, running "lspci" in dom0 reported
> nothing under X:0.0  (although I may well be remembering incorrectly).
> 
> This was for XenServer 6.0 which is using Novell's Xen-ified 2.6.32 kernel.
> 
>> Also, didn't we sort of agree that creating a phantom device would
>> be more elegant (or at least much smaller a change)?
> 
> I don't remember talking about that, but perhaps. :-)
> 
> In reality, I don't know the code well enough to whip up a patch
> (like, where / how would I make such a device), and this is not that
> much of a priority for me.  If this patch isn't accepted, it will
> probably fall to you or Keir (or some other sufficiently motivated
> party) to fix it.

Understood. I'd be curious of Allen's thoughts here, as he would be
the most knowledgeable one in this area.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel