On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 04:36:22PM +0200, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Christoffer,
>
> On 21/10/2017 16:31, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:13:21PM +0200, Auger Eric wrote:
> >> Hi Christoffer,
> >>
> >> On 18/10/2017 00:34, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:10:07AM +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> >>>> When the GITS_BASER<n>.Valid gets cleared, the data structures in
> >>>> guest RAM are not valid anymore. The device, collection
> >>>> and LPI lists stored in the in-kernel ITS represent the same
> >>>> information in some form of cache. So let's void the cache.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> v2 -> v3:
> >>>> - add a comment and clear cache in if block
> >>>> ---
> >>>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++----
> >>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> >>>> index f3f0026f..084239c 100644
> >>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> >>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> >>>> @@ -1471,8 +1471,9 @@ static void vgic_mmio_write_its_baser(struct kvm
> >>>> *kvm,
> >>>> unsigned long val)
> >>>> {
> >>>> const struct vgic_its_abi *abi = vgic_its_get_abi(its);
> >>>> - u64 entry_size, device_type;
> >>>> + u64 entry_size;
> >>>> u64 reg, *regptr, clearbits = 0;
> >>>> + int type;
> >>>>
> >>>> /* When GITS_CTLR.Enable is 1, we ignore write accesses. */
> >>>> if (its->enabled)
> >>>> @@ -1482,12 +1483,12 @@ static void vgic_mmio_write_its_baser(struct kvm
> >>>> *kvm,
> >>>> case 0:
> >>>> regptr = &its->baser_device_table;
> >>>> entry_size = abi->dte_esz;
> >>>> - device_type = GITS_BASER_TYPE_DEVICE;
> >>>> + type = GITS_BASER_TYPE_DEVICE;
> >>>> break;
> >>>> case 1:
> >>>> regptr = &its->baser_coll_table;
> >>>> entry_size = abi->cte_esz;
> >>>> - device_type = GITS_BASER_TYPE_COLLECTION;
> >>>> + type = GITS_BASER_TYPE_COLLECTION;
> >>>> clearbits = GITS_BASER_INDIRECT;
> >>>> break;
> >>>> default:
> >>>> @@ -1499,10 +1500,24 @@ static void vgic_mmio_write_its_baser(struct kvm
> >>>> *kvm,
> >>>> reg &= ~clearbits;
> >>>>
> >>>> reg |= (entry_size - 1) << GITS_BASER_ENTRY_SIZE_SHIFT;
> >>>> - reg |= device_type << GITS_BASER_TYPE_SHIFT;
> >>>> + reg |= (u64)type << GITS_BASER_TYPE_SHIFT;
> >>>> reg = vgic_sanitise_its_baser(reg);
> >>>>
> >>>> *regptr = reg;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /* Table no longer valid: clear cached data */
> >>>> + if (!(reg & GITS_BASER_VALID)) {
> >>>> + switch (type) {
> >>>> + case GITS_BASER_TYPE_DEVICE:
> >>>> + vgic_its_free_device_list(kvm, its);
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + case GITS_BASER_TYPE_COLLECTION:
> >>>> + vgic_its_free_collection_list(kvm, its);
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + default:
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + }
> >>>
> >>> So we do this after setting the *regptr, which makes we worried about
> >>> races.
> >>>
> >>> How are guest writes to these registers synchronized with, for example
> >>> trying to save the tables. Perhaps we don't care because userspace
> >>> should have stopped the VM before trying to save the ITS state?
> >>
> >> Yes save & restore can happen only if all vcpus are locked. Same for
> >> user space accesses.
> >>
> >
> > So this cannot happens, because the save/restore operation will fail to
> > get the lock of an executing VCPU which is modifying this function?
>
> Yes that's my understanding.
>
ok. If you respin, putting a comment here may be worth it.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
