[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 0/2] VT-d flush issue

> On 21.12.2015 at 8:50pm, <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On 21.12.15 at 13:28, <quan.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 21.12.2015 at 7:47pm, <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>> On 20.12.15 at 14:57, <quan.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > 2. If VT-d is bug, does the hardware_domain continue to work with
> >> > PCIe Devices / DRAM well with DMA remapping error?
> >> >    I think it is no. furthermore, i think VMM can NOT run a normal
> >> > HVM domain without device-passthrough.
> >>
> >> In addition to what Andrew said - VT-d is effectively not in use for
> >> domains without PT device.
> >
> > IMO, When VT-d is enabled, but is not working correct. These PCI-e
> > devices
> > (Disks/NICs..) DMA/Interrupt behaviors are not predictable.
> > Assumed that, VT-d is effectively not in use for domains without PT
> > device, while at least the virtualization infrastructure is not trusted.
> > I think it is also not secure to run PV domains.
> >
> >> Impacting all such domains by crashing the hypervisor just because
> >> (in the extreme case) a single domain with PT devices exhibited a
> >> flush issue is a no-go imo.
> >>
> >
> > IMO, a VT-d (IEC/Context/Iotlb) flush issue is not a single domain
> > behavior, it is a Hypervisor and infrastructure issue.
> > ATS device's Device-TLB flush is a single domain issue.
> > Back to our original goal, my patch set is for ATS flush issue. right?
> You mean you don't like this entailing clean up of other code? 

 Jan, for ARM/AMD, I really have no knowledge to fix it. and I have no
 ARM/AMD hardware to verify it. if I need to fix these common part of 
INTEL/ARM/AMD, I think I need to make
 Xen compile correct and not to destroy the logic.

> I'm sorry, but I'm
> afraid you won't get away without - perhaps the VT-d maintainers could help
> here, but in the end you have to face that it was mainly Intel people who
> introduced the code which now needs fixing up, so I consider it not exactly
> unfair for you (as a
> company) to do this work.

Furthermore, I found out that
     if IEC/Iotlb/Context flush error, then panic.
     Else if device-tlb flush error, we'll hide the target ATS device and kill 
the domain owning this ATS device. If impacted domain is hardware domain, just 
throw out a warning.

     Then, it is fine to _not_check all the way up the device-tlb flush call 
trees( maybe it is our next topic of discussion). Then it will not hurt the 
ARM/AMD platform.


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

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.