[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC PATCH] s390x/pci: vfio-pci breakage with disabled mem enforceme

From: Niklas Schnelle
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] s390x/pci: vfio-pci breakage with disabled mem enforcement
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:33:55 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0

On 7/27/20 6:47 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:40:39 +0200
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>> On 2020-07-23 18:29, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:13:55 -0400
>>> Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> I noticed that after kernel commit abafbc55 'vfio-pci: Invalidate mmaps
>>>> and block MMIO access on disabled memory' vfio-pci via qemu on s390x
>>>> fails spectacularly, with errors in qemu like:
... snip ...
>> Alex, Matt,
>> in s390 we have the possibility to assign a virtual function to a 
>> logical partition as function 0.
>> In this case it can not be treated as a virtual function but must be 
>> treated as a physical function.
>> This is currently working very well.
>> However, these functions do not set PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY as we need.
> Where is the vendor and device ID virtualization done for these
> devices, we can't have a PF with IDs 0000:0000.
Pierre doesn't mean the Device/Vendor IDs he means it has devfn == 0
so it is the mandatory function zero on it's PCI bus, where until recently
we always had only one function per bus but with the recent multi-function
support it can act more like on other platforms with several PCI functions
sharing the same Bus e.g. a PF and the VFs created through sriov_numvfs.
That's why I'm saying that having devfn == 0 should not be very special for a VF
passed to a VM and I really don't see where it would not act like a VF passed
from any other Hypervisor.

The only really tricky part in my opinion is where during the "probing"
we do set is_virtfn so it happens both for VFs passed-through from z/VM
or LPAR and VFs created through sriov_numvfs which unlike on other platforms
are also scanned by Firmware (pdev->no_vf_scan disables the Linux side 
With the fix I'm currently testing I had to do this in pcibios_enable_device()
because I also create sysfs links between VFs and their parent PFs and those
need the sysfs entries to be already created, which makes the more apropriately
sound pcibios_bus_add_device() too early.
>> Shouldn't we fix this inside the kernel, to keep older QMEU working?
>> Then would it be OK to add a new bit/boolean inside the 
>> pci_dev/vfio_pci_device like, is_detached_vfn, that we could set during 
>> enumeration and test inside __vfio_pci_memory_enabled() to return true?
> Probably each instance of is_virtfn in vfio-pci should be looked at to
> see if it applies to s390.  If we're going to recognize this as a VF,
> I'd rather we complete the emulation that the lower level hypervisor
> has missed.  If we can enable all the is_virtfn code on s390, then we
> should probably cache is_virtfn on the vfio_pci_device object and allow
> s390 a place to set it once at probe or enable time.
>> In the enumeration we have the possibility to know if the function is a 
>> HW/Firmware virtual function on devfn 0 or if it is created by SRIOV.
>> It seems an easy fix without side effects.
>> What do you think?
> It sure seems preferable to recognize that it is a VF in the kernel
> than to require userspace to have arch specific hacks.  Thanks,
> Alex

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]