[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [XEN PATCH v12 2/7] x86/pvh: Allow (un)map_pirq when dom0 is PVH
- To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 11:55:35 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
- Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <gwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, "Daniel P . Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stewart Hildebrand <Stewart.Hildebrand@xxxxxxx>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@xxxxxxx>, Jiqian Chen <Jiqian.Chen@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 09:55:54 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 31.07.2024 11:37, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:02:01AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 31.07.2024 10:51, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> I agree with (a), but I don't think enabling PVH dom0 usage of the
>>> hypercalls should be gated on this. As said a PV dom0 is already
>>> capable of issuing PHYSDEVOP_{,un}map_pirq operations against a PVH
>>> domU.
>>
>> Okay, I can accept that as an intermediate position. We ought to deny
>> such requests at some point though for PVH domains, the latest in the
>> course of making vPCI work there.
>
> Hm, once physdev_map_pirq() works as intended against PVH domains, I
> don't see why we would prevent the usage of PHYSDEVOP_{,un}map_pirq
> against such domains.
Well. If it can be made work as intended, then I certainly agree. However,
without even the concept of pIRQ in PVH I'm having a hard time seeing how
it can be made work. Iirc you were advocating for us to not introduce pIRQ
into PVH.
Maybe you're thinking of re-using the sub-ops, requiring PVH domains to
pass in GSIs? I think I suggested something along these lines also to
Jiqian, yet with the now intended exposure to !has_pirq() domains I'm
not sure this could be made work reliably.
Which reminds me of another question I had: What meaning does the pirq
field have right now, if Dom0 would issue the request against a PVH DomU?
What meaning will it have for a !has_pirq() HVM domain?
Jan
|
