On 2025/5/7 16:09, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 07:26:21AM +0000, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>> On 2025/5/7 00:21, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 02:18:59PM +0800, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>>>> When vpci fails to initialize a extended capability of device for dom0,
>>>> it just return error instead of catching and processing exception. That
>>>> makes the entire device unusable.
>>>>
>>>> So, add new a function to hide extended capability when initialization
>>>> fails. And remove the failed extended capability handler from vpci
>>>> extended capability list.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiqian Chen <jiqian.c...@amd.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> cc: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger....@citrix.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v2->v3 changes:
>>>> * Separated from the last version patch "vpci: Hide capability when it
>>>> fails to initialize".
>>>> * Whole implementation changed because last version is wrong.
>>>> This version gets target handler and previous handler from
>>>> vpci->handlers, then remove the target.
>>>> * Note: a case in function vpci_ext_capability_mask() needs to be
>>>> discussed,
>>>> because it may change the offset of next capability when the offset of
>>>> target
>>>> capability is 0x100U(the first extended capability), my implementation
>>>> is just to
>>>> ignore and let hardware to handle the target capability.
>>>>
>>>> v1->v2 changes:
>>>> * Removed the "priorities" of initializing capabilities since it isn't
>>>> used anymore.
>>>> * Added new function vpci_capability_mask() and vpci_ext_capability_mask()
>>>> to
>>>> remove failed capability from list.
>>>> * Called vpci_make_msix_hole() in the end of init_msix().
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Jiqian Chen.
>>>> ---
>>>> xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> xen/include/xen/pci_regs.h | 1 +
>>>> 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c b/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c
>>>> index f97c7cc460a0..8ff5169bdd18 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/vpci.c
>>>> @@ -183,6 +183,83 @@ static void vpci_capability_mask(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>>> xfree(next_r);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static struct vpci_register *vpci_get_previous_ext_cap_register
>>>> + (struct vpci *vpci, const unsigned int offset)
>>>> +{
>>>> + uint32_t header;
>>>> + unsigned int pos = PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE;
>>>> + struct vpci_register *r;
>>>> +
>>>> + if ( offset <= PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE )
>>>> + return NULL;
>>>> +
>>>> + r = vpci_get_register(vpci, pos, 4);
>>>> + ASSERT(r);
>>>> +
>>>> + header = (uint32_t)(uintptr_t)r->private;
>>>> + pos = PCI_EXT_CAP_NEXT(header);
>>>> + while ( pos > PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE && pos != offset )
>>>> + {
>>>> + r = vpci_get_register(vpci, pos, 4);
>>>> + ASSERT(r);
>>>> + header = (uint32_t)(uintptr_t)r->private;
>>>> + pos = PCI_EXT_CAP_NEXT(header);
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if ( pos <= PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE )
>>>> + return NULL;
>>>> +
>>>> + return r;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void vpci_ext_capability_mask(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>>> + const unsigned int cap)
>>>> +{
>>>> + const unsigned int offset = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev->sbdf, cap);
>>>> + struct vpci_register *rm, *prev_r;
>>>> + struct vpci *vpci = pdev->vpci;
>>>> + uint32_t header, pre_header;
>>>
>>> Maybe sanity check that offset is correct?
>> What do you mean sanity check?
>> Do I need to add something?
>
> I would probably do something like:
>
> if ( !offset )
> {
> ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
> return;
> }
How about adding check?
if ( offset < PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE )
{
ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
return -EINVAL;
}
Do I need to add similar check in vpci_capability_mask()?
>
> Thanks, Roger.
--
Best regards,
Jiqian Chen.
