[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] msix: don't mask already masked vectors on rese
From: |
Ladi Prosek |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] msix: don't mask already masked vectors on reset |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:32:57 +0100 |
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Marcel Apfelbaum <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Ladi,
>
> On 20/11/2017 16:22, Ladi Prosek wrote:
>>
>> msix_mask_all() is supposed to invoke the release vector notifier if the
>> state of the
>> respective vector changed from unmasked or masked.
>
>
> You mean from unmasked "to" masked right?
Yes, that's a typo.
> The way it's currently called from
>>
>> msix_reset(), though, may result in calling the release notifier even if
>> the vector
>> is already masked.
>>
>> 1) msix_reset() clears out the msix_cap field and the msix_table.
>> 2) msix_mask_all() runs with was_masked=false for all vectors because of
>> 1), which
>> results in calling the release notifier on all vectors.
>> 3) if msix_reset() is subsequently called again, it goes through the same
>> steps and
>> calls the release notifier on all vectors again.
>>
>
> As far as I can see in the code you are right.(very reset will trigger the
> release notifiers
> again)
>
>> This commit moves msix_mask_all() up so it runs before the device state is
>> lost.
>
>
> OK
>
>> And
>> it adds a call to msix_update_function_masked() so that the device
>> remembers that
>> MSI-X is masked.
>>
>
> msix_update_function_masked checks the msix is enabled or masked-off.
> You are building on the fact the msix will not be enabled to set
> "msix_function_masked" to "true", right?
> (I just want to be sure I understand the patch)
Correct. msix_enabled() will return false because we've just reset
dev->config[dev->msix_cap + MSIX_CONTROL_OFFSET]
I guess we could also simply assign true to it:
dev->msix_function_masked = true;
just like msix_init() does.
>> This is likely a low impact issue, found while debugging an already broken
>> device. It
>> is however easy to fix and the expectation that the use and release
>> notifier invocations
>> are always balanced is very natural.
>>
>
> I would leave it (maybe) out of 2.11 because it may expose other bugs
> and we are after rc2 already.
>
> Adding Alex Williamson to see it does not affect device assignment,
> other than that the patch looks OK to me.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Marcel
>
>
>> Signed-off-by: Ladi Prosek <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> hw/pci/msix.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/pci/msix.c b/hw/pci/msix.c
>> index c944c02135..34656de9b0 100644
>> --- a/hw/pci/msix.c
>> +++ b/hw/pci/msix.c
>> @@ -500,11 +500,12 @@ void msix_reset(PCIDevice *dev)
>> return;
>> }
>> msix_clear_all_vectors(dev);
>> + msix_mask_all(dev, dev->msix_entries_nr);
>> dev->config[dev->msix_cap + MSIX_CONTROL_OFFSET] &=
>> ~dev->wmask[dev->msix_cap + MSIX_CONTROL_OFFSET];
>> memset(dev->msix_table, 0, dev->msix_entries_nr *
>> PCI_MSIX_ENTRY_SIZE);
>> memset(dev->msix_pba, 0, QEMU_ALIGN_UP(dev->msix_entries_nr, 64) /
>> 8);
>> - msix_mask_all(dev, dev->msix_entries_nr);
>> + msix_update_function_masked(dev);
>> }
>> /* PCI spec suggests that devices make it possible for software to
>> configure
>>
>