From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RFC 6/6] x86/MSI: properly track guest
 masking requests
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:26:48 +0100
Message-ID: <558C0FA8.7060303@citrix.com>
References: <558839ED02000078000879FE@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<55883D290200007800087A67@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<558AE7DD.6090908@citrix.com>
	<558BD23A0200007800089597@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=6114ee934=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>)
	id 1Z887H-0000GK-SP
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:26:59 +0000
In-Reply-To: <558BD23A0200007800089597@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 25/06/15 09:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 24.06.15 at 19:24, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 22/06/15 15:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/msi.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/msi.c
>>> @@ -1308,6 +1308,39 @@ printk("%04x:%02x:%02x.%u: MSI-X %03x:%u
>>>          return 1;
>>>      }
>>>  
>>> +    entry = find_msi_entry(pdev, -1, PCI_CAP_ID_MSI);
>>> +    if ( entry && entry->msi_attrib.maskbit )
>>> +    {
>>> +        uint16_t cntl;
>>> +        uint32_t unused;
>>> +
>>> +        pos = entry->msi_attrib.pos;
>>> +        if ( reg < pos || reg >= entry->msi.mpos + 8 )
>>> +            return 0;
>>> +printk("%04x:%02x:%02x.%u: MSI %03x:%u->%04x\n", seg, bus, slot, func, reg, size, *data);//temp
>>> +
>>> +        if ( reg == msi_control_reg(pos) )
>>> +            return size == 2 ? 1 : -EACCES;
>>> +        if ( reg < entry->msi.mpos || reg >= entry->msi.mpos + 4 || size != 4 )
>>> +            return -EACCES;
>> Can we avoid using EACCES to avoid confusing it with a mismatched tools
>> version?
> What other suitable error code would you see here? I'm not sure
> we want this error code to be reserved for exactly one purpose,
> the more that here we're on a path that will never has this error
> code returned to the guest (and even less so via a domctl/sysctl,
> which would be the primary mismatched-tools-version candidates).

If there is no chance that we will end up back on a domctl/sysctl error
path then its use is fine.

~Andrew