On 11/03/2025 11:12, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>
>
>> On 11 Mar 2025, at 10:59, Orzel, Michal <michal.or...@amd.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/03/2025 10:30, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Michal,
>>>
>>>> On 11 Mar 2025, at 10:04, Michal Orzel <michal.or...@amd.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At the moment, we print a warning about max number of IRQs supported by
>>>> GIC bigger than vGIC only for hardware domain. This check is not hwdom
>>>> special, and should be made common. Also, in case of user not specifying
>>>> nr_spis for dom0less domUs, we should take into account max number of
>>>> IRQs supported by vGIC if it's smaller than for GIC.
>>>>
>>>> Introduce VGIC_MAX_IRQS macro and use it instead of hardcoded 992 value.
>>>> Fix calculation of nr_spis for dom0less domUs and make the GIC/vGIC max
>>>> IRQs comparison common.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.or...@amd.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c | 2 +-
>>>> xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 9 ++-------
>>>> xen/arch/arm/gic.c | 3 +++
>>>> xen/arch/arm/include/asm/vgic.h | 3 +++
>>>> 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c b/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c
>>>> index 31f31c38da3f..9a84fee94119 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c
>>>> @@ -1018,7 +1018,7 @@ void __init create_domUs(void)
>>>> {
>>>> int vpl011_virq = GUEST_VPL011_SPI;
>>>>
>>>> - d_cfg.arch.nr_spis = gic_number_lines() - 32;
>>>> + d_cfg.arch.nr_spis = min(gic_number_lines(), VGIC_MAX_IRQS) -
>>>> 32;
>>>
>>> I would suggest to introduce a static inline gic_nr_spis in a gic header ...
>> Why GIC and not vGIC? This is domain's nr_spis, so vGIC.
>
> yes vGIC sorry.
>
>> But then, why static inline if the value does not change and is domain
>> agnostic?
>> I struggle to find a good name for this macro. Maybe (in vgic.h):
>> #define vgic_def_nr_spis (min(gic_number_lines(), VGIC_MAX_IRQS) - 32)
>> to denote default nr_spis if not set by the user?
>
> Yes that would work. My point is to prevent to have 2 definitions in 2
> different
> source file and a risk to forget to update one and not the other (let say if
> some
> day we change 32 in 64).
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * The VPL011 virq is GUEST_VPL011_SPI, unless direct-map is
>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
>>>> index 7cc141ef75e9..b99c4e3a69bf 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
>>>> @@ -2371,13 +2371,8 @@ void __init create_dom0(void)
>>>>
>>>> /* The vGIC for DOM0 is exactly emulating the hardware GIC */
>>>> dom0_cfg.arch.gic_version = XEN_DOMCTL_CONFIG_GIC_NATIVE;
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * Xen vGIC supports a maximum of 992 interrupt lines.
>>>> - * 32 are substracted to cover local IRQs.
>>>> - */
>>>> - dom0_cfg.arch.nr_spis = min(gic_number_lines(), (unsigned int) 992) -
>>>> 32;
>>>> - if ( gic_number_lines() > 992 )
>>>> - printk(XENLOG_WARNING "Maximum number of vGIC IRQs exceeded.\n");
>>>> + /* 32 are substracted to cover local IRQs */
>>>> + dom0_cfg.arch.nr_spis = min(gic_number_lines(), VGIC_MAX_IRQS) - 32;
>>>
>>> and reuse it here to make sure the value used is always the same.
>>>
>>>> dom0_cfg.arch.tee_type = tee_get_type();
>>>> dom0_cfg.max_vcpus = dom0_max_vcpus();
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c
>>>> index acf61a4de373..e80fe0ca2421 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c
>>>> @@ -251,6 +251,9 @@ void __init gic_init(void)
>>>> panic("Failed to initialize the GIC drivers\n");
>>>> /* Clear LR mask for cpu0 */
>>>> clear_cpu_lr_mask();
>>>> +
>>>> + if ( gic_number_lines() > VGIC_MAX_IRQS )
>>>> + printk(XENLOG_WARNING "Maximum number of vGIC IRQs exceeded\n");
>>>
>>> I am a bit unsure with this one.
>>> If this is the case, it means any gicv2 or gicv3 init detected an
>>> impossible value and
>>> any usage of gic_number_lines would be using an impossible value.
>> Why impossible? GIC can support up to 1020 IRQs. Our vGIC can support up to
>> 992
>> IRQs.
>
> Maybe unsupported is a better wording, my point is that it could lead to non
> working system
> if say something uses irq 1000.
Actually, I took a look at the code and I don't think we should panic (i.e. we
should keep things as they are today). In your example, if something uses IRQ >
VGIC_MAX_IRQS that is bigger than gic_number_lines(), then we will receive error
when mapping this IRQ to guest (but you don't have to use such device and in the
future we may enable IRQ re-mapping). That's why in all the places related to
domains, we use vgic_num_irqs() and not gic_number_lines(). The latter is only
used for IRQs routed to Xen.
~Michal
