lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 09/26] gunyah: rsc_mgr: Add VM lifecycle RPC
From


On 2/15/2023 10:39 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 01:23:42PM -0800, Elliot Berman wrote:
>>
>> Add Gunyah Resource Manager RPC to launch an unauthenticated VM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile | 2 +-
>> drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.h | 45 ++++++
>> drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr_rpc.c | 226 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/gunyah_rsc_mgr.h | 73 ++++++++++
>> 4 files changed, 345 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> create mode 100644 drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr_rpc.c
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile b/drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile
>> index cc864ff5abbb..de29769f2f3f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile
>> @@ -2,5 +2,5 @@
>>
>> obj-$(CONFIG_GUNYAH) += gunyah.o
>>
>> -gunyah_rsc_mgr-y += rsc_mgr.o
>> +gunyah_rsc_mgr-y += rsc_mgr.o rsc_mgr_rpc.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_GUNYAH) += gunyah_rsc_mgr.o
>> diff --git a/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.h b/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.h
>> index d4e799a7526f..7406237bc66d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.h
>> +++ b/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.h
>> @@ -74,4 +74,49 @@ struct gh_rm;
>> int gh_rm_call(struct gh_rm *rsc_mgr, u32 message_id, void *req_buff, size_t req_buff_size,
>> void **resp_buf, size_t *resp_buff_size);
>>
>> +/* Message IDs: VM Management */
>> +#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_ALLOC_VMID 0x56000001
>> +#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_DEALLOC_VMID 0x56000002
>> +#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_START 0x56000004
>> +#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_STOP 0x56000005
>> +#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_RESET 0x56000006
>> +#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_CONFIG_IMAGE 0x56000009
>> +#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_INIT 0x5600000B
>> +#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_GET_HYP_RESOURCES 0x56000020
>> +#define GH_RM_RPC_VM_GET_VMID 0x56000024
>> +
>> +struct gh_rm_vm_common_vmid_req {
>> + __le16 vmid;
>> + __le16 reserved0;
>
> reserved for what? What is a valid value for this field? Should it be
> checked for 0?

This struct is transmitted "over the wire" and RM makes all of its
structures 4-byte aligned. The reserved fields are padding for this
alignment and will be zero but don't need to be checked. Linux
initializes the reserved fields to zero.

>
> Same with other "reserved0" fields in this file.
>
>
>> +} __packed;
>> +
>> +/* Call: VM_ALLOC */
>> +struct gh_rm_vm_alloc_vmid_resp {
>> + __le16 vmid;
>> + __le16 reserved0;
>> +} __packed;
>> +
>> +/* Call: VM_STOP */
>> +struct gh_rm_vm_stop_req {
>> + __le16 vmid;
>> +#define GH_RM_VM_STOP_FLAG_FORCE_STOP BIT(0)
>> + u8 flags;
>> + u8 reserved;
>
> Why just "reserved" and not "reserved0"? Naming is hard :(
>

Some fields have multiple reserved fields. I'll clean up so "reserved0"
only appears when there are multiple padding fields.

Thanks,
Elliot

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:26    [W:1.505 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site