Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 4/7] vfio: ap: AP Queue Interrupt Control VFIO ioctl calls | From | Tony Krowiak <> | Date | Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:40:54 -0500 |
| |
On 11/7/18 5:31 PM, Pierre Morel wrote: > On 06/11/2018 21:21, Tony Krowiak wrote: >> On 10/31/18 2:12 PM, Pierre Morel wrote: >>> This is the implementation of the VFIO ioctl calls to handle >>> the AQIC interception and use GISA to handle interrupts. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c >>> b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c >>> index 272ef427dcc0..f68102163bf4 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c >>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c >>> @@ -895,12 +895,107 @@ static int >>> vfio_ap_mdev_get_device_info(unsigned long arg) >>> return copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, &info, minsz); >>> } >>> +static int ap_ioctl_setirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev, >> >> In keeping with the other function names in this file, how about >> naming this function vfio_ap_mdev_setirq??? > > OK, agreed. > >> >>> + struct vfio_ap_aqic *parm) >>> +{ >>> + struct aqic_gisa aqic_gisa = reg2aqic(0); >>> + struct kvm_s390_gisa *gisa = matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.gisa; >>> + struct ap_status ap_status = reg2status(0); >>> + unsigned long p; >>> + int ret = -1; >>> + int apqn; >>> + uint32_t gd; >>> + >>> + apqn = (int)(parm->cmd & 0xffff); >>> + >>> + gd = matrix_mdev->kvm->vcpus[0]->arch.sie_block->gd; >>> + if (gd & 0x01) >>> + aqic_gisa.f = 1; >>> + aqic_gisa.gisc = matrix_mdev->gisc; >> >> Can't you get this value from parm? I don't see any relationship >> between the mdev device and gisc, why store it there? > > The idea is that we may want to report this value to the admin or as > debug information, so I wanted to keep track of it.
It can be added if/when that is implemented. As of now, it is not needed.
> >> >>> + aqic_gisa.isc = GAL_ISC; >>> + aqic_gisa.ir = 1; >>> + aqic_gisa.gisao = gisa->next_alert >> 4; >>> + >>> + p = (unsigned long) page_address(matrix_mdev->map->page); >>> + p += (matrix_mdev->map->guest_addr & 0x0fff); >>> + >>> + ret = ap_host_aqic((uint64_t)apqn, aqic2reg(aqic_gisa), p); >>> + parm->status = ret; >>> + >>> + ap_status = reg2status(ret); >>> + return (ap_status.rc) ? -EIO : 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int ap_ioctl_clrirq(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev, >>> + struct vfio_ap_aqic *parm) >> >> In keeping with the other function names in this file, how about >> naming this function vfio_ap_mdev_clrirq, or better yet, >> vfio_ap_mdev_clear_irq??? > > agreed too. > >> >>> +{ >>> + struct aqic_gisa aqic_gisa = reg2aqic(0); >>> + struct ap_status ap_status = reg2status(0) > + int apqn; >>> + int retval; >>> + uint32_t gd; >>> + >>> + apqn = (int)(parm->cmd & 0xffff); >>> + >>> + gd = matrix_mdev->kvm->vcpus[0]->arch.sie_block->gd; >>> + if (gd & 0x01) >>> + aqic_gisa.f = 1; >>> + aqic_gisa.ir = 0; >>> + >>> + retval = ap_host_aqic((uint64_t)apqn, aqic2reg(aqic_gisa), 0); >>> + parm->status = retval; >>> + >>> + ap_status = reg2status(retval); >>> + return (ap_status.rc) ? -EIO : 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> static ssize_t vfio_ap_mdev_ioctl(struct mdev_device *mdev, >>> unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) >>> { >>> int ret; >>> + struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev = mdev_get_drvdata(mdev); >>> + struct s390_io_adapter *adapter; >>> + struct vfio_ap_aqic parm; >>> + struct s390_map_info *map; >>> + int apqn, found = 0; >>> switch (cmd) { >>> + case VFIO_AP_SET_IRQ: >>> + if (copy_from_user(&parm, (void __user *)arg, sizeof(parm))) >>> + return -EFAULT; >>> + apqn = (int)(parm.cmd & 0xffff); >>> + parm.status &= 0x00000000ffffffffUL; >>> + matrix_mdev->gisc = parm.status & 0x07; >> >> It seems that the only reason for the 'gisc' field in matrix_mdev >> is to pass the value to the ap_ioctl_setirq() function. Since the >> gisc has nothing to do with the mdev device and the 'parm' is being >> passed to ap_ioctl_setirq(), why not just eliminate the >> matrix_mdev->gisc field and get it from the 'parm' parameter in >> ap_ioctl_setirq()? > > OK, seems better. > >> >>> + /* find the adapter */ap_ioctl_setirq() >>> + adapter = matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.adapters[parm.adapter_id]; >>> + if (!adapter) >>> + return -ENOENT; >>> + down_write(&adapter->maps_lock); >>> + list_for_each_entry(map, &adapter->maps, list) { >>> + if (map->guest_addr == parm.nib) { >>> + found = 1; >>> + break; >>> + } >>> + } >>> + up_write(&adapter->maps_lock); >>> + >>> + if (!found) >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + >>> + matrix_mdev->map = map; >> >> See my comment above about matrix_mdev->gisc. Can't we just get rid >> of the matrix_mdev->map field and pass the map into the >> ap_ioctl_setirq() function? > > or calculate it from parm... as we give parm as argument to this function
Better yet.
> >> >>> + ret = ap_ioctl_setirq(matrix_mdev, &parm); >>> + parm.status &= 0x00000000ffffffffUL; >>> + if (copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, &parm, sizeof(parm))) >>> + return -EFAULT; >>> + >>> + break; >> >> IMHO, the case statements should only determine which ioctl is being >> invoked and call the appropriate function to handle it. All of the above >> code could be in an intermediate function called from this case >> statement, thus reducing the case to calling the intermediate function. > > OK, I can do so, however I would like to let the __user access here.
I can live with that although I prefer the one liner here.
> >> >>> + case VFIO_AP_CLEAR_IRQ: >>> + if (copy_from_user(&parm, (void __user *)arg, sizeof(parm))) >>> + return -EFAULT; >>> + ret = ap_ioctl_clrirq(matrix_mdev, &parm); >>> + if (copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, &parm, sizeof(parm))) >>> + return -EFAULT; >>> + break; >>> case VFIO_DEVICE_GET_INFO: >>> ret = vfio_ap_mdev_get_device_info(arg); >>> break; >>> >> > > Thanks > Pierre >
| |