On 2015/6/17 18:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 11.06.15 at 03:15, <tiejun.c...@intel.com> wrote:
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
@@ -2277,13 +2277,37 @@ static int intel_iommu_assign_device(
if ( list_empty(&acpi_drhd_units) )
return -ENODEV;
+ seg = pdev->seg;
+ bus = pdev->bus;
+ /*
+ * In rare cases one given rmrr is shared by multiple devices but
+ * obviously this would put the security of a system at risk. So
+ * we should prevent from this sort of device assignment.
+ *
+ * TODO: actually we can group these devices which shared rmrr, and
+ * then allow all devices within a group to be assigned to same domain.
+ */
+ for_each_rmrr_device( rmrr, bdf, i )
+ {
+ if ( rmrr->segment == seg &&
+ PCI_BUS(bdf) == bus &&
+ PCI_DEVFN2(bdf) == devfn )
+ {
+ if ( rmrr->scope.devices_cnt > 1 )
+ {
+ ret = -EPERM;
+ printk(XENLOG_G_ERR VTDPREFIX
+ " cannot assign this device with shared RMRR for Dom%d
(%d)\n",
+ d->domain_id, ret);
+ return ret;
return -EPERM. No need to assign the value to ret, and no need to
add the constant error code to the log entry. What's missing otoh
is what "this device" is - you should print SBDF instead.
Right.
printk(XENLOG_G_ERR VTDPREFIX
" cannot assign %04x:%02x:%02x.%u"
" with shared RMRR for Dom%d.\n",
seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn),
d->domain_id);
return -EPERM;
Thanks
Tiejun
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
