Re: [PATCH v13 06/24] gunyah: rsc_mgr: Add resource manager RPC core

[Alex Elder]

On 5/9/23 3:47 PM, Elliot Berman wrote:
> The resource manager is a special virtual machine which is always
> running on a Gunyah system. It provides APIs for creating and destroying
> VMs, secure memory management, sharing/lending of memory between VMs,
> and setup of inter-VM communication. Calls to the resource manager are
> made via message queues.
>
> This patch implements the basic probing and RPC mechanism to make those
> API calls. Request/response calls can be made with gh_rm_call.
> Drivers can also register to notifications pushed by RM via
> gh_rm_register_notifier
>
> Specific API calls that resource manager supports will be implemented in
> subsequent patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx>

I have some comments below, but none is critical so whether or not you
address what I mention:

Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
>   drivers/virt/Makefile          |   1 +
>   drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile   |   4 +
>   drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.c  | 702 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.h  |  16 +
>   include/linux/gunyah_rsc_mgr.h |  21 +
>   5 files changed, 744 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile
>   create mode 100644 drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.c
>   create mode 100644 drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.h
>   create mode 100644 include/linux/gunyah_rsc_mgr.h
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virt/Makefile b/drivers/virt/Makefile
> index e9aa6fc96fab..a5817e2d7d71 100644
> --- a/drivers/virt/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/virt/Makefile
> @@ -12,3 +12,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACRN_HSM)		+= acrn/
>   obj-$(CONFIG_EFI_SECRET)	+= coco/efi_secret/
>   obj-$(CONFIG_SEV_GUEST)		+= coco/sev-guest/
>   obj-$(CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_GUEST)	+= coco/tdx-guest/
> +obj-y				+= gunyah/
> diff --git a/drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile b/drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..0f5aec834698
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/virt/gunyah/Makefile
> @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +gunyah-y += rsc_mgr.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_GUNYAH) += gunyah.o
> diff --git a/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.c b/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..88b5beb1ea51
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/virt/gunyah/rsc_mgr.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,702 @@

. . .

> +/**
> + * struct gh_rm - private data for communicating w/Gunyah resource manager
> + * @dev: pointer to device

This points to the device structure for the RM platform device.
(Maybe that's clear...)

> + * @tx_ghrsc: message queue resource to TX to RM
> + * @rx_ghrsc: message queue resource to RX from RM
> + * @msgq: mailbox instance of TX/RX resources above
> + * @msgq_client: mailbox client of above msgq
> + * @active_rx_connection: ongoing gh_rm_connection for which we're receiving fragments
> + * @last_tx_ret: return value of last mailbox tx
> + * @call_xarray: xarray to allocate & lookup sequence IDs for Request/Response flows
> + * @next_seq: next ID to allocate (for xa_alloc_cyclic)
> + * @cache: cache for allocating Tx messages
> + * @send_lock: synchronization to allow only one request to be sent at a time
> + * @nh: notifier chain for clients interested in RM notification messages
> + */
> +struct gh_rm {
> +	struct device *dev;
> +	struct gh_resource tx_ghrsc;
> +	struct gh_resource rx_ghrsc;
> +	struct gh_msgq msgq;
> +	struct mbox_client msgq_client;
> +	struct gh_rm_connection *active_rx_connection;
> +	int last_tx_ret;
> +
> +	struct xarray call_xarray;
> +	u32 next_seq;
> +
> +	struct kmem_cache *cache;
> +	struct mutex send_lock;
> +	struct blocking_notifier_head nh;
> +};
> +
> +/**
> + * gh_rm_remap_error() - Remap Gunyah resource manager errors into a Linux error code
> + * @rm_error: "Standard" return value from Gunyah resource manager
> + */
> +static inline int gh_rm_remap_error(enum gh_rm_error rm_error)

I suggested something similar last time.  I you are operating
on an rm_error value, so I would call this gh_rm_error_remap().

> +{
> +	switch (rm_error) {
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_OK:
> +		return 0;
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_UNIMPLEMENTED:
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_NOMEM:
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_NORESOURCE:
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_DENIED:
> +		return -EPERM;
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_BUSY:
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_INVALID:
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_ARGUMENT_INVALID:
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_HANDLE_INVALID:
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_VALIDATE_FAILED:
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_MAP_FAILED:
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_MEM_INVALID:
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_MEM_INUSE:
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_MEM_RELEASED:
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_VMID_INVALID:
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_LOOKUP_FAILED:
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_IRQ_INVALID:
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_IRQ_INUSE:
> +	case GH_RM_ERROR_IRQ_RELEASED:
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	default:
> +		return -EBADMSG;
> +	}
> +}

. . .

> +static void gh_rm_process_rply(struct gh_rm *rm, void *msg, size_t msg_size)
> +{
> +	struct gh_rm_rpc_reply_hdr *reply_hdr = msg;
> +	struct gh_rm_connection *connection;
> +	u16 seq_id;
> +
> +	seq_id = le16_to_cpu(reply_hdr->hdr.seq);
> +	connection = xa_load(&rm->call_xarray, seq_id);
> +
> +	if (!connection || connection->msg_id != reply_hdr->hdr.msg_id)
> +		return;

Do either of the above conditions warrant reporting a warning if
it occurs?  Or are these expected to be possible--and if either
occur they're harmless if handled this way?

> +
> +	if (rm->active_rx_connection)
> +		gh_rm_abort_connection(rm);
> +
> +	if (gh_rm_init_connection_payload(connection, msg, sizeof(*reply_hdr), msg_size)) {
> +		dev_err(rm->dev, "Failed to alloc connection buffer for sequence %d\n", seq_id);
> +		/* Send connection complete and error the client. */
> +		connection->reply.ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		complete(&connection->reply.seq_done);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	connection->reply.rm_error = le32_to_cpu(reply_hdr->err_code);
> +	rm->active_rx_connection = connection;
> +}

. . .