[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: grant-table: Check truncation when giving access to a frame
On 13/06/16 13:45, Paul Durrant wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Julien Grall [mailto:julien.grall@xxxxxxx] Sent: 13 June 2016 13:42 To: Paul Durrant; boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx; David Vrabel; jgross@xxxxxxxx; sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx; konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx Cc: Andrew Cooper; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; JBeulich@xxxxxxxx; steve.capper@xxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: grant-table: Check truncation when giving access to a frame On 13/06/16 13:41, Julien Grall wrote:Hello Paul, On 13/06/16 13:12, Paul Durrant wrote:-----Original Message----- From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On BehalfOfJulien Grall Sent: 13 June 2016 11:51 To: boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx; David Vrabel; jgross@xxxxxxxx; sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx; konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx Cc: steve.capper@xxxxxxx; Andrew Cooper; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Julien Grall; JBeulich@xxxxxxxx Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: grant-table: Check truncation when giving access to a frame The version 1 of the grant-table protocol only supports frame encodedon32-bit. When the platform is supporting 48-bit physical address, the frame will be encoded on 36-bit which will lead a truncation and give access to the wrong frame. On ARM Xen will always allow the guest to use all the physical address, although today the RAM is always located under 40-bits (see xen/include/public/arch-arm.h). Add a truncation check in gnttab_update_entry_v1 to prevent the guesttogive access to the wrong frame. Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> --- This is limiting us to a 44-bit address space whilst ARM can support up to 48-bit today. This number of bit will increase to 52-bit in upcoming processors [1]. It might be good to start thinking to extend the version 1 of the protocol to use 64-bit frame number....or simply use version 2 of the protocol.On another mail [1], you said that "[v2] didn't scale it became bottle-necked on dom0's grant table size,...". So it looks like to me that version 2 is the wrong way to go. The performance should stay the same whether the platform support 40-bit, 44-bit, 48-bit, 52-bit address space.No, I meant the guest receive-side copy didn't scale, not grant table v2 itself. Ok the table is bigger with v2, but to do guest receive-side copy required a huge table in dom0 if it was going to scale to 100s of VMs and the perf. benefits were never that great (if they were there at all). Sorry I misunderstood your previous mail. So the only downside is the size of the table. Looking at the structure in the header (public/grant_table.h), this is effectively much bigger. A commit in Linux [1] suggests that grant v2 only supports 256 grants per page rather than 512 for v1. How would that impact a guest? Regards, [1] commit 11c7ff17c9b6dbf3a4e4f36be30ad531a6cf0ec9 Author: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon Jan 6 10:44:39 2014 -0500 xen/grant-table: Force to use v1 of grants. We have the framework to use v2, but there are no backends that actually use it. The end result is that on PV we use v2 grants and on PVHVM v1. The v1 has a capacity of 512 grants per page while the v2 has 256 grants per page. This means we lose about 50% capacity - and if we want more than 16 VIFs (each VIF takes 512 grants), then we are hitting the max per guest of 32. So from my understanding the table is much more bigger. -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |