[PATCH v3 29/55] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-new: Add TARGET registers handlers

[Christoffer Dall]

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
> The target register handlers are v2 emulation specific, so their
> implementation lives entirely in vgic-mmio-v2.c.
> We copy the old VGIC behaviour of assigning an IRQ to the first VCPU
> set in the target mask instead of making it possibly pending on
> multiple VCPUs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com>
> ---
> Changelog RFC..v1:
> - remove runtime VCPU determination from this v2-only register
> - fold in implementation of vgic_v2_irq_change_affinity()
> - replace ffs() with __ffs()
> 
> Changelog v1 .. v2:
> - adapt to new MMIO framework
> 
>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c
> index 2a953ec..888529e 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c
> @@ -66,6 +66,47 @@ static void vgic_mmio_write_v2_misc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static unsigned long vgic_mmio_read_target(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> +					   gpa_t addr, unsigned int len)
> +{
> +	u32 intid = addr & 0x3ff;
> +	int i;
> +	u64 val = 0;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
> +		struct vgic_irq *irq = vgic_get_irq(vcpu->kvm, vcpu, intid + i);
> +
> +		val |= (u64)irq->targets << (i * 8);
> +	}
> +
> +	return val;

this register should allow byte access, so you're missing a call to
extract_bytes() ?


> +}
> +
> +static void vgic_mmio_write_target(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> +				   gpa_t addr, unsigned int len,
> +				   unsigned long val)
> +{
> +	u32 intid = addr & 0x3ff;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	/* GICD_ITARGETSR[0-7] are read-only */
> +	if (intid < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)
> +		return;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
> +		struct vgic_irq *irq = vgic_get_irq(vcpu->kvm, NULL, intid + i);
> +		int target;
> +
> +		spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
> +
> +		irq->targets = (val >> (i * 8)) & 0xff;

this doesn't seem right given byte accesses either, and I don't see the
fixups we have in the works fixing it...

> +		target = irq->targets ? __ffs(irq->targets) : 0;
> +		irq->target_vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(vcpu->kvm, target);
> +
> +		spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  static const struct vgic_register_region vgic_v2_dist_registers[] = {
>  	REGISTER_DESC_WITH_LENGTH(GIC_DIST_CTRL,
>  		vgic_mmio_read_v2_misc, vgic_mmio_write_v2_misc, 12),
> @@ -86,7 +127,7 @@ static const struct vgic_register_region vgic_v2_dist_registers[] = {
>  	REGISTER_DESC_WITH_BITS_PER_IRQ(GIC_DIST_PRI,
>  		vgic_mmio_read_priority, vgic_mmio_write_priority, 8),
>  	REGISTER_DESC_WITH_BITS_PER_IRQ(GIC_DIST_TARGET,
> -		vgic_mmio_read_raz, vgic_mmio_write_wi, 8),
> +		vgic_mmio_read_target, vgic_mmio_write_target, 8),
>  	REGISTER_DESC_WITH_BITS_PER_IRQ(GIC_DIST_CONFIG,
>  		vgic_mmio_read_config, vgic_mmio_write_config, 2),
>  	REGISTER_DESC_WITH_LENGTH(GIC_DIST_SOFTINT,
> -- 
> 2.7.3
>