* Alex Williamson (alex.william...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:59:39 +0530 > Kirti Wankhede <kwankh...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > On 6/23/2020 1:58 AM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:51:12 +0530 > > > Kirti Wankhede <kwankh...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > >> These functions save and restore PCI device specific data - config > > >> space of PCI device. > > >> Tested save and restore with MSI and MSIX type. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Kirti Wankhede <kwankh...@nvidia.com> > > >> Reviewed-by: Neo Jia <c...@nvidia.com> > > >> --- > > >> hw/vfio/pci.c | 95 > > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> include/hw/vfio/vfio-common.h | 2 + > > >> 2 files changed, 97 insertions(+) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/hw/vfio/pci.c b/hw/vfio/pci.c > > >> index 27f8872db2b1..5ba340aee1d4 100644 > > >> --- a/hw/vfio/pci.c > > >> +++ b/hw/vfio/pci.c > > >> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ > > >> #include "trace.h" > > >> #include "qapi/error.h" > > >> #include "migration/blocker.h" > > >> +#include "migration/qemu-file.h" > > >> > > >> #define TYPE_VFIO_PCI "vfio-pci" > > >> #define PCI_VFIO(obj) OBJECT_CHECK(VFIOPCIDevice, obj, > > >> TYPE_VFIO_PCI) > > >> @@ -2407,11 +2408,105 @@ static Object *vfio_pci_get_object(VFIODevice > > >> *vbasedev) > > >> return OBJECT(vdev); > > >> } > > >> > > >> +static void vfio_pci_save_config(VFIODevice *vbasedev, QEMUFile *f) > > >> +{ > > >> + VFIOPCIDevice *vdev = container_of(vbasedev, VFIOPCIDevice, > > >> vbasedev); > > >> + PCIDevice *pdev = &vdev->pdev; > > >> + > > >> + qemu_put_buffer(f, vdev->emulated_config_bits, vdev->config_size); > > >> + qemu_put_buffer(f, vdev->pdev.wmask, vdev->config_size); > > >> + pci_device_save(pdev, f); > > >> + > > >> + qemu_put_be32(f, vdev->interrupt); > > >> + if (vdev->interrupt == VFIO_INT_MSIX) { > > >> + msix_save(pdev, f); > > > > > > msix_save() checks msix_present() so shouldn't we include this > > > unconditionally? Can't there also be state in the vector table > > > regardless of whether we're currently running in MSI-X mode? > > > > > >> + } > > >> +} > > >> + > > >> +static int vfio_pci_load_config(VFIODevice *vbasedev, QEMUFile *f) > > >> +{ > > >> + VFIOPCIDevice *vdev = container_of(vbasedev, VFIOPCIDevice, > > >> vbasedev); > > >> + PCIDevice *pdev = &vdev->pdev; > > >> + uint32_t interrupt_type; > > >> + uint16_t pci_cmd; > > >> + int i, ret; > > >> + > > >> + qemu_get_buffer(f, vdev->emulated_config_bits, vdev->config_size); > > >> + qemu_get_buffer(f, vdev->pdev.wmask, vdev->config_size); > > > > > > This doesn't seem safe, why is it ok to indiscriminately copy these > > > arrays that are configured via support or masking of various device > > > features from the source to the target? > > > > > > > Ideally, software state at host should be restrored at destination - > > this is the attempt to do that. > > Or is it the case that both source and target should initialize these > and come up with the same result and they should be used for > validation, not just overwriting the target with the source?
Is the request to have something similar to get_pci_config_device's check where it compares the configs and c/w/w1c masks (see hw/pci/pci.c:520 ish) - we get errors like: Bad config data: i=0x.... read: ... device: ... cmask... this is pretty good at spotting things where the source and destination device are configured differently, but to allow other dynamic configuration values to be passed through OK. Dave > > > I think this still fails basic feature support negotiation. For > > > instance, Intel IGD assignment modifies emulated_config_bits and wmask > > > to allow the VM BIOS to allocate fake stolen memory for the GPU and > > > store this value in config space. This support can be controlled via a > > > QEMU build-time option, therefore the feature support on the target can > > > be different from the source. If this sort of feature set doesn't > > > match between source and target, I think we'd want to abort the > > > migration, but we don't have any provisions for that here (a physical > > > IGD device is obviously just an example as it doesn't support migration > > > currently). > > > > > > > Then is it ok not to include vdev->pdev.wmask? If yes, I'll remove it. > > But we need vdev->emulated_config_bits to be restored. > > It's not clear why we need emulated_config_bits copied or how we'd > handle the example I set forth above. The existence of emulation > provided by QEMU is also emulation state. > > > > >> + > > >> + ret = pci_device_load(pdev, f); > > >> + if (ret) { > > >> + return ret; > > >> + } > > >> + > > >> + /* retore pci bar configuration */ > > >> + pci_cmd = pci_default_read_config(pdev, PCI_COMMAND, 2); > > >> + vfio_pci_write_config(pdev, PCI_COMMAND, > > >> + pci_cmd & (!(PCI_COMMAND_IO | > > >> PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY)), 2); > > > > > > s/!/~/? Extra parenthesis too > > > > > >> + for (i = 0; i < PCI_ROM_SLOT; i++) { > > >> + uint32_t bar = pci_default_read_config(pdev, > > >> + PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0 + i * > > >> 4, 4); > > >> + > > >> + vfio_pci_write_config(pdev, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0 + i * 4, bar, 4); > > >> + } > > >> + > > >> + interrupt_type = qemu_get_be32(f); > > >> + > > >> + if (interrupt_type == VFIO_INT_MSI) { > > >> + uint32_t msi_flags, msi_addr_lo, msi_addr_hi = 0, msi_data; > > >> + bool msi_64bit; > > >> + > > >> + /* restore msi configuration */ > > >> + msi_flags = pci_default_read_config(pdev, > > >> + pdev->msi_cap + > > >> PCI_MSI_FLAGS, 2); > > >> + msi_64bit = (msi_flags & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_64BIT); > > >> + > > >> + vfio_pci_write_config(pdev, pdev->msi_cap + PCI_MSI_FLAGS, > > >> + msi_flags & (!PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE), 2); > > >> + > > > > > > What if I migrate from a device with MSI support to a device without > > > MSI support, or to a device with MSI support at a different offset, who > > > is responsible for triggering a migration fault? > > > > > > > Migration compatibility check should take care of that. If there is such > > a big difference in hardware then other things would also fail. > > > The division between what is our responsibility in QEMU and what we > hope the vendor driver handles is not very clear imo. How do we avoid > finger pointing when things break? > > > > >> + msi_addr_lo = pci_default_read_config(pdev, > > >> + pdev->msi_cap + > > >> PCI_MSI_ADDRESS_LO, 4); > > >> + vfio_pci_write_config(pdev, pdev->msi_cap + PCI_MSI_ADDRESS_LO, > > >> + msi_addr_lo, 4); > > >> + > > >> + if (msi_64bit) { > > >> + msi_addr_hi = pci_default_read_config(pdev, > > >> + pdev->msi_cap + > > >> PCI_MSI_ADDRESS_HI, 4); > > >> + vfio_pci_write_config(pdev, pdev->msi_cap + > > >> PCI_MSI_ADDRESS_HI, > > >> + msi_addr_hi, 4); > > >> + } > > >> + > > >> + msi_data = pci_default_read_config(pdev, > > >> + pdev->msi_cap + (msi_64bit ? PCI_MSI_DATA_64 : > > >> PCI_MSI_DATA_32), > > >> + 2); > > >> + > > >> + vfio_pci_write_config(pdev, > > >> + pdev->msi_cap + (msi_64bit ? PCI_MSI_DATA_64 : > > >> PCI_MSI_DATA_32), > > >> + msi_data, 2); > > >> + > > >> + vfio_pci_write_config(pdev, pdev->msi_cap + PCI_MSI_FLAGS, > > >> + msi_flags | PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE, 2); > > >> + } else if (interrupt_type == VFIO_INT_MSIX) { > > >> + uint16_t offset; > > >> + > > >> + offset = pci_default_read_config(pdev, > > >> + pdev->msix_cap + PCI_MSIX_FLAGS > > >> + 1, 2); > > >> + /* load enable bit and maskall bit */ > > >> + vfio_pci_write_config(pdev, pdev->msix_cap + PCI_MSIX_FLAGS + 1, > > >> + offset, 2); > > >> + msix_load(pdev, f); > > > > > > Isn't this ordering backwards, or at least less efficient? The config > > > write will cause us to enable MSI-X; presumably we'd have nothing in > > > the vector table though. Then msix_load() will write the vector > > > and pba tables and trigger a use notifier for each vector. It seems > > > like that would trigger a bunch of SET_IRQS ioctls as if the guest > > > wrote individual unmasked vectors to the vector table, whereas if we > > > setup the vector table and then enable MSI-X, we do it with one ioctl. > > > > > > > Makes sense. Changing the order here. > > > > > Also same question as above, I'm not sure who is responsible for making > > > sure both devices support MSI-X and that the capability exists at the > > > same place on each. Repeat for essentially every capability. Are we > > > leaning on the migration regions to fail these migrations before we get > > > here? If so, should we be? > > > > > As I mentioned about it should be vendor drivers responsibility to have > > compatibility check in that case. > > > And we'd rather blindly assume the vendor driver included that > requirement than to check for ourselves? > > > > > Also, besides BARs, the command register, and MSI & MSI-X, there must > > > be other places where the guest can write config data through to the > > > device. pci_device_{save,load}() only sets QEMU's config space. > > > > > > > From QEMU we can restore QEMU's software state. For mediated device, > > emulated state at vendor driver should be maintained by vendor driver, > > right? > > In this proposal we've determined that emulated_config_bits, wmask, > emulated config space, and MSI/X state are part of QEMU's state that > need to be transmitted to the target. It therefore shouldn't be > difficult to imagine that adding support for another capability might > involve QEMU emulation as well. How does the migration stream we've > constructed here allow such emulation state to be included? For example > we might have a feature like IGD where we can discern the > incompatibility via differences in the emulated_config_bits and wmask, > but that's not guaranteed. > > > > A couple more theoretical (probably not too distant) examples related > > > to that; there's a resizable BAR capability that at some point we'll > > > probably need to allow the guest to interact with (ie. manipulation of > > > capability changes the reported region size for a BAR). How would we > > > support that with this save/load scheme? > > > > Config space is saved at the start of stop-and-copy phase, that means > > vCPUs are stopped. So QEMU's config space saved at this phase should > > include the change. Will there be any other software state that would be > > required to save/load? > > > There might be, it seems inevitable that there would eventually be > something that needs emulation state beyond this initial draft. Is > this resizable BAR example another that we simply hand wave as the > responsibility of the vendor driver? > > > > > We'll likely also have SR-IOV > > > PFs assigned where we'll perhaps have support for emulating the SR-IOV > > > capability to call out to a privileged userspace helper to enable VFs, > > > how does this get extended to support that type of emulation? > > > > > > I'm afraid that making carbon copies of emulated_config_bits, wmask, > > > and invoking pci_device_save/load() doesn't address my concerns that > > > saving and restoring config space between source and target really > > > seems like a much more important task than outlined here. Thanks, > > > > > > > Are you suggesting to load config space using vfio_pci_write_config() > > from PCI_CONFIG_HEADER_SIZE to > > PCI_CONFIG_SPACE_SIZE/PCIE_CONFIG_SPACE_SIZE? I was kind of avoiding it. > > I don't think we can do that, even the save/restore functions in the > kernel only blindly overwrite the standard header and then use > capability specific functions elsewhere. But I think what is missing > here is the ability to hook in support for manipulating specific > capabilities on save and restore, which might include QEMU emulation > state data outside of what's provided here. Thanks, > > Alex -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK