On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 11:55:34AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> When Dom0 informs us about MMCFG usability, this may change whether
> extended capabilities are available (accessible) for devices. Zap what
> might be on record, and re-initialize things.
>
> No synchronization is added for the case where devices may already be in
> use. That'll need sorting when (a) DomU support was added and (b) DomU-s
> may run already while Dom0 / hwdom still boots (dom0less, Hyperlaunch).
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
> ---
> vpci_reinit_ext_capabilities()'es return value isn't checked, as it
> doesn't feel quite right to fail the hypercall because of this. At the
> same time it also doesn't feel quite right to have the function return
> "void". Thoughts?
For the non hardwware domain case we could deassign the device from
the domain?
And print a warning message for both cases.
> ---
> v4: Make sure ->cleanup() and ->init() are invoked.
> v3: New.
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/physdev.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/physdev.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
> #include <xen/guest_access.h>
> #include <xen/iocap.h>
> #include <xen/serial.h>
> +#include <xen/vpci.h>
> +
> #include <asm/current.h>
> #include <asm/io_apic.h>
> #include <asm/msi.h>
> @@ -169,7 +171,10 @@ int cf_check physdev_check_pci_extcfg(st
>
> ASSERT(pdev->seg == info->segment);
> if ( pdev->bus >= info->start_bus && pdev->bus <= info->end_bus )
> + {
> pci_check_extcfg(pdev);
> + vpci_reinit_ext_capabilities(pdev);
> + }
>
> return 0;
> }
> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/cap.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/cap.c
> @@ -285,13 +285,16 @@ static int vpci_init_ext_capability_list
> return 0;
> }
>
> -int vpci_init_capabilities(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +int vpci_init_capabilities(struct pci_dev *pdev, bool ext_only)
> {
> int rc;
>
> - rc = vpci_init_capability_list(pdev);
> - if ( rc )
> - return rc;
> + if ( !ext_only )
> + {
> + rc = vpci_init_capability_list(pdev);
> + if ( rc )
> + return rc;
> + }
>
> rc = vpci_init_ext_capability_list(pdev);
> if ( rc )
> @@ -305,7 +308,7 @@ int vpci_init_capabilities(struct pci_de
> unsigned int pos = 0;
>
> if ( !is_ext )
> - pos = pci_find_cap_offset(pdev->sbdf, cap);
> + pos = !ext_only ? pci_find_cap_offset(pdev->sbdf, cap) : 0;
> else if ( is_hardware_domain(pdev->domain) )
> pos = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev, cap);
>
> @@ -349,7 +352,7 @@ int vpci_init_capabilities(struct pci_de
> return 0;
> }
>
> -void vpci_cleanup_capabilities(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +void vpci_cleanup_capabilities(struct pci_dev *pdev, bool ext_only)
> {
> for ( unsigned int i = 0; i < NUM_VPCI_INIT; i++ )
> {
> @@ -361,7 +364,7 @@ void vpci_cleanup_capabilities(struct pc
> continue;
>
> if ( !capability->is_ext )
> - pos = pci_find_cap_offset(pdev->sbdf, cap);
> + pos = !ext_only ? pci_find_cap_offset(pdev->sbdf, cap) : 0;
> else if ( is_hardware_domain(pdev->domain) )
> pos = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev, cap);
> if ( pos )
> @@ -376,6 +379,20 @@ void vpci_cleanup_capabilities(struct pc
> }
> }
>
> +int vpci_reinit_ext_capabilities(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> + if ( !pdev->vpci )
> + return 0;
> +
> + vpci_cleanup_capabilities(pdev, true);
> +
> + if ( vpci_remove_registers(pdev->vpci, PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE,
> + PCI_CFG_SPACE_EXP_SIZE - PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE) )
> + ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
> +
> + return vpci_init_capabilities(pdev, true);
I wonder here, in the context here, where the device is already
assigned to a domain you likely need to take the vPCI lock to safely
perform (parts of?) the cleanup and reinit. Otherwise you could free
capability data while it's being accessed by the handlers.
The only current extended capability (reBAR) doesn't have any internal
state to free on cleanup, so it's all safe. But a cleanup like the
MSI(-X) ones would be racy, as they free the structure without holding
the vPCI lock. I think we need to be careful, and possibly adjust the
cleanup functions so they can tolerate cleanup with possible
concurrent accesses.
Thanks, Roger.
