Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 4/7] vfio: ap: AP Queue Interrupt Control VFIO ioctl calls | From | Pierre Morel <> | Date | Wed, 7 Nov 2018 23:31:59 +0100 |
| |
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.
> >> + 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
> >> + 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.
> >> + 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
-- Pierre Morel Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany
| |