On Wed, 15 Feb 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 14/02/17 21:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Handle incoming LPIs, which are a bit special, because they are
> > > potentially
> > > + * numerous and also only get injected into guests. Treat them specially
> > > here,
> > > + * by just looking up their target vCPU and virtual LPI number and hand
> > > it
> > > + * over to the injection function.
> > > + */
> > > +void do_LPI(unsigned int lpi)
> > > +{
> > > + struct domain *d;
> > > + union host_lpi *hlpip, hlpi;
> > > + struct vcpu *vcpu;
> > > +
> > > + WRITE_SYSREG32(lpi, ICC_EOIR1_EL1);
> > > +
> > > + hlpip = gic_get_host_lpi(lpi);
> > > + if ( !hlpip )
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + hlpi.data = read_u64_atomic(&hlpip->data);
> > > +
> > > + /* We may have mapped more host LPIs than the guest actually asked
> > > for. */
> > > + if ( !hlpi.virt_lpi )
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + d = get_domain_by_id(hlpi.dom_id);
> > > + if ( !d )
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + if ( hlpi.vcpu_id >= d->max_vcpus )
> > > + {
> > > + put_domain(d);
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + vcpu = d->vcpu[hlpi.vcpu_id];
> > > +
> > > + put_domain(d);
> > > +
> > > + vgic_vcpu_inject_irq(vcpu, hlpi.virt_lpi);
> >
> > put_domain should be here
>
> Why? I don't even understand why we would need to take a reference on the
> domain for LPIs. Would not it be enough to use rcu_lock_domain_by_id here?
I think that rcu_lock_domain_by_id would also work, but similarly we
would need to call rcu_unlock here.
To be honest, I don't know exactly in which cases get_domain should be
used instead of rcu_lock_domain_by_id.
CC'ing the x86 guys that might know the answer.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
