On Tue, 5 May 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/05/15 11:39, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2015, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
Hi,
On 30/04/15 14:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
If the devid is not within
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
On 05/05/15 11:28, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On 04/05/2015 16:19, Vijay Kilari wrote:
How did you implement the interrupt mode? Could it be improve?
1) In
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
On 05/05/15 12:06, Vijay Kilari wrote:
One MSI per domain is always consumed because each domain during
ITS initialization creates Virtual ITS and sends basic initialization
commands (MAPC)
AFAICT, MAPC won't be
On 05/05/15 12:06, Vijay Kilari wrote:
One MSI per domain is always consumed because each domain during
ITS initialization creates Virtual ITS and sends basic initialization
commands (MAPC)
AFAICT, MAPC won't be translated to a physical command. So not interrupt
completion is necessary.
On Tue, 5 May 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
On 05/05/15 11:28, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On 04/05/2015 16:19, Vijay Kilari wrote:
How did you implement the interrupt mode? Could it be improve?
1) In physical ITS driver its_device
On 05/05/15 13:00, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
On 05/05/15 12:06, Vijay Kilari wrote:
One MSI per domain is always consumed because each domain during
ITS initialization creates Virtual ITS and sends basic initialization
On Mon, 4 May 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On 04/05/2015 16:19, Vijay Kilari wrote:
How did you implement the interrupt mode? Could it be improve?
1) In physical ITS driver its_device is created with devID
00:00.1
with
256 MSI-x are reserved
On Mon, 4 May 2015, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
Hi,
On 30/04/15 14:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
If the devid is not within this range, the ITS won't recognize the
value and
won't be able to send the interrupt.
On 05/05/15 11:28, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On 04/05/2015 16:19, Vijay Kilari wrote:
How did you implement the interrupt mode? Could it be improve?
1) In physical ITS driver its_device is created with devID
00:00.1
with
256 MSI-x
On 05/05/15 11:39, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2015, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
Hi,
On 30/04/15 14:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
If the devid is not within this range, the ITS won't recognize the
value and
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
Hi,
On 30/04/15 14:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
If the devid is not within this range, the ITS won't recognize the value
and
won't be able to send the interrupt.
So this is clearly not the right value.
Sure,
On 04/05/2015 13:58, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
Hi,
On 30/04/15 14:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
If the devid is not within this range, the ITS won't recognize the value and
won't be able to send the interrupt.
So this
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
On 04/05/2015 13:58, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
Hi,
On 30/04/15 14:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
If the devid is not within this range, the
Hi Vijay,
On 04/05/2015 14:27, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
On 04/05/2015 13:58, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
Hi,
On 30/04/15 14:47, Stefano Stabellini
On 04/05/2015 14:44, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On 04/05/2015 14:27, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
On 04/05/2015 13:58, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
On 04/05/2015 14:44, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On 04/05/2015 14:27, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
On 04/05/2015 13:58, Vijay Kilari wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On 04/05/2015 16:19, Vijay Kilari wrote:
How did you implement the interrupt mode? Could it be improve?
1) In physical ITS driver its_device is created with devID 00:00.1
with
256 MSI-x are reserved and is named as completion_dev, which is global.
That's a lot of MSI-x
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 30/04/2015 11:02, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
On 29/04/15 17:30, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Vijay Kilari vijay.kil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
On 30/04/2015 11:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
As said earlier, the number of DevBits implemented by the ITS can be
limited
(see GITS_TYPER.Devbits).
If the devid is not within this range, the ITS won't recognize the value
and
won't
Hi Stefano,
On 30/04/2015 11:02, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
On 29/04/15 17:30, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Vijay Kilari vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
On 29/04/15 17:30, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Vijay Kilari vijay.kil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
On 29/04/15 12:56, Julien Grall wrote:
As the 2
On 30/04/2015 11:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
As said earlier, the number of DevBits implemented by the ITS can be limited
(see GITS_TYPER.Devbits).
If the devid is not within this range, the ITS won't recognize the value and
won't be able to send the interrupt.
So this is clearly not the
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Stefano Stabellini
stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 30/04/2015 11:02, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
On 29/04/15 17:30, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Wed, Apr
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Stefano Stabellini
stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 30/04/2015 11:02, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
On
Hi,
On 30/04/15 14:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
If the devid is not within this range, the ITS won't recognize the value
and
won't be able to send the interrupt.
So this is clearly not the right value.
Sure, in that case the maximum value allowed by GITS_TYPER.Devbits.
Vijay, what is
On 29/04/15 13:12, Manish Jaggi wrote:
and that too
ITS is not in critical path.
It is only used when configuring interrupts of the device?
You need to think about security... Even though the ITS should only be
used for configuring interrupts, a malicious guest could try to exploit
weakness
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 05:51 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 29/04/15 13:12, Manish Jaggi wrote:
and that too ITS is not in critical path. It is only used when
configuring interrupts of the device?
You need to think about security... Even though the ITS should only
be used for configuring
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 06:31 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 29/04/15 13:33, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 05:51 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 29/04/15 13:12, Manish Jaggi wrote:
and that too ITS is not in critical path. It is only used when
configuring interrupts of the
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 05:26 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hello,
On 29/04/15 02:44, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
On 28/04/15 12:36, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
On 29/04/15 14:08, Manish Jaggi wrote:
Do you have any other security concern ?
Yes. The one we talked in every mail since the beginning of this thread
polling in EL2. We got several XSA because the hypervisor code wasn't
preemptible (see [1])
We are removing polling using command processing
Hello,
On 29/04/15 02:44, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
On 28/04/15 12:36, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
If you properly manage the device with struct
On 29/04/15 13:33, Manish Jaggi wrote:
On Wednesday 29 April 2015 05:51 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 29/04/15 13:12, Manish Jaggi wrote:
and that too ITS is not in critical path. It is only used when
configuring interrupts of the device?
You need to think about security... Even though the ITS
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Vijay Kilari vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Julien,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
On 29/04/15 12:56, Julien Grall wrote:
As the 2 suggested approach don't seem to fit our usage, we need to find
another
Hi Julien,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
On 29/04/15 12:56, Julien Grall wrote:
As the 2 suggested approach don't seem to fit our usage, we need to find
another approach.
I think I have another approach which doesn't require interrupt neither
On 29/04/15 17:30, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Vijay Kilari vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
On 29/04/15 12:56, Julien Grall wrote:
As the 2 suggested approach don't seem to fit our usage, we
On 29/04/15 12:56, Julien Grall wrote:
As the 2 suggested approach don't seem to fit our usage, we need to find
another approach.
I think I have another approach which doesn't require interrupt neither
polling in EL2.
1) Trap on CWRITER
a) Read command for the vITS CQ
b) Transform
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
Hi,
On 28/04/15 10:56, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Vijay Kilari wrote:
Approach 1: (Using completion interrupt)
1) Create dummy device for each virtual ITS when virtual its is
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On 28/04/15 12:36, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com
wrote:
If you properly manage the device with struct pci_dev or struct device
(which is, as
Hi Vijay,
On 28/04/15 12:36, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@citrix.com wrote:
If you properly manage the device with struct pci_dev or struct device
(which is, as talked earlier, obviously required for security) you
should avoid your so-called
Hi,
On 28/04/15 10:56, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Vijay Kilari wrote:
Approach 1: (Using completion interrupt)
1) Create dummy device for each virtual ITS when virtual its is
created for a domain
OR Allocate one interrupt number for each virtual ITS
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Julien Grall julien.grall@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ian,
On 02/04/2015 12:18, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 12:06 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Can we just enqueue with the hardware and use the guest vcpu polling
loop to trigger us to check for
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Julien Grall julien.grall@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Ian,
On 02/04/2015 12:18, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 12:06 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Can we just enqueue with the hardware and use the guest
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 13:02 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
On 01/04/15 12:46, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:47 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
In any case ITS commands are processed in synchronously. So any VCPU that
send ITS commands is blocked.
What exactly is synchronous here?
Hi Ian,
On 02/04/2015 10:13, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 13:02 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
On 01/04/15 12:46, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:47 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
In any case ITS commands are processed in synchronously. So any VCPU that
send ITS commands is
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 12:06 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Can we just enqueue with the hardware and use the guest vcpu polling
loop to trigger us to check for completion?
Enqueue may be long. I was thinking about suggesting to use a tasklet
for processing ITS command.
We don't need to
Hi Ian,
On 02/04/2015 12:18, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 12:06 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
Can we just enqueue with the hardware and use the guest vcpu polling
loop to trigger us to check for completion?
Enqueue may be long. I was thinking about suggesting to use a tasklet
for
On 01/04/15 12:46, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:47 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
In any case ITS commands are processed in synchronously. So any VCPU that
send ITS commands is blocked.
What exactly is synchronous here? Is it just the translate vits into
requests queued with the
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 16:47 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
In any case ITS commands are processed in synchronously. So any VCPU that
send ITS commands is blocked.
What exactly is synchronous here? Is it just the translate vits into
requests queued with the physical its driver phase or does it
Hi Julien,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Julien Grall julien.gr...@linaro.org wrote:
Hello Vijay,
More questions/remarks about command processing.
On 19/03/2015 14:38, vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
+int vgic_its_process_cmd(struct vcpu *v, struct vgic_its *vits)
+{
+struct
Hello Vijay,
More questions/remarks about command processing.
On 19/03/2015 14:38, vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
+int vgic_its_process_cmd(struct vcpu *v, struct vgic_its *vits)
+{
+struct its_cmd_block virt_cmd;
+
+/* XXX: Currently we are processing one cmd at a time */
+
Hello,
Second part of the review.
On 19/03/15 14:38, vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
+static int vgic_its_build_sync_cmd(struct vcpu *v,
+ struct vgic_its *vits,
+ struct its_cmd_block *virt_cmd,
+
Hello Vijay,
On 19/03/2015 14:38, vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Vijaya Kumar K vijaya.ku...@caviumnetworks.com
Add Virtual ITS command processing support to
Virtual ITS driver. Also add API's to in physical
ITS driver to send commands from Virtual ITS driver.
In this patch, following
From: Vijaya Kumar K vijaya.ku...@caviumnetworks.com
Add Virtual ITS command processing support to
Virtual ITS driver. Also add API's to in physical
ITS driver to send commands from Virtual ITS driver.
In this patch, following are done
-Physical ITS driver will allocate physical LPI for
53 matches
Mail list logo
