Re: [Xen-devel] HYBRID: max_mapped_pfn in ept_set_entry()

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 01:08 +0100, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I've a question. For my hybrid (PV in HVM) dom0 I do 1-1 mapping for 
> mmio pages.  So, gpfn 000fbf23 maps to 000fbf23 in EPT. The
> max_mapped_pfn is not adjusted in ept_set_entry() because the mfn is
> not valid: 
> 
>     if ( mfn_valid(mfn_x(mfn)) &&
>          (gfn + (1UL << order) - 1 > p2m->max_mapped_pfn) )
>          p2m->max_mapped_pfn = gfn + (1UL << order) - 1;
> 
> As a result, clear_mmio_p2m_entry() fails because ept_get_entry() fails
> because:
>     if ( gfn > p2m->max_mapped_pfn )
>             goto out;
> 
> 
> I'm trying to figure the right thing to do here. Should I just change
> the "gfn > p2m->max_mapped_pfn" in ept_get_entry() to check for
> INVALID_MFN? I really shouldn't be adjusting max_mapped_pfn for MMIO
> pages, right?

I'm no expert on the p2m side of things but ept_get_entry says:
    /* This pfn is higher than the highest the p2m map currently holds */
    if ( gfn > p2m->max_mapped_pfn )
        goto out;

which suggests to me that this is just an optimisation (skipping a
lookup which can never succeed) and therefore it is appropriate to
update max_mapped_pfn. After all a 1-1 mapped pfn is still a pfn.

Other places, like ept_walk_table seem to make a similar optimisation. 

Unless there is some reason to assume that these functions will never be
passed an MMIO pfn?

The only user of that var which looks like it might need some thought in
this context would be domain_get_maximum_gpfn and its callers.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel