[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: p2m_ram_ro is incompatible with device pass-through
On 04.07.2019 11:35, Paul Durrant wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> >> Sent: 04 July 2019 10:19 >> To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; George Dunlap >> <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roger Pau >> Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>; Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: p2m_ram_ro is incompatible with device >> pass-through >> >> On 03.07.2019 17:22, Paul Durrant wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> >>>> Sent: 03 July 2019 12:36 >>>> To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; Paul Durrant >>>> <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>; Andrew Cooper >>>> <Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>; Roger Pau Monne >>>> <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Subject: [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: p2m_ram_ro is incompatible with device >>>> pass-through >>>> >>>> The write-discard property of the type can't be represented in IOMMU >>>> page table entries. Make sure the respective checks / tracking can't >>>> race, by utilizing the domain lock. The other sides of the sharing/ >>>> paging/log-dirty exclusion checks should subsequently perhaps also be >>>> put under that lock then. >>>> >>>> Take the opportunity and also convert neighboring bool_t to bool in >>>> struct hvm_domain. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> v2: Don't set p2m_ram_ro_used when failing the request. >>>> >>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/dm.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/dm.c >>>> @@ -255,16 +255,33 @@ static int set_mem_type(struct domain *d >>>> >>>> mem_type = array_index_nospec(data->mem_type, ARRAY_SIZE(memtype)); >>>> >>>> - if ( mem_type == HVMMEM_ioreq_server ) >>>> + switch ( mem_type ) >>>> { >>>> unsigned int flags; >>>> >>>> + case HVMMEM_ioreq_server: >>>> if ( !hap_enabled(d) ) >>>> return -EOPNOTSUPP; >>>> >>>> /* Do not change to HVMMEM_ioreq_server if no ioreq server >>>> mapped. */ >>>> if ( !p2m_get_ioreq_server(d, &flags) ) >>>> return -EINVAL; >>>> + >>>> + break; >>>> + >>>> + case HVMMEM_ram_ro: >>>> + /* p2m_ram_ro can't be represented in IOMMU mappings. */ >>>> + domain_lock(d); >>>> + if ( has_iommu_pt(d) ) >>>> + rc = -EXDEV; >>>> + else >>>> + d->arch.hvm.p2m_ram_ro_used = true; >>> >>> Do we really want this to be a one-way trip? On the face of it, it >>> would seem that keeping a count of p2m_ram_ro entries would be more >>> desirable such that, once the last one is gone, devices can be >>> assigned again? >> >> Well, at this point I'm not really up to introducing accounting of >> the number of uses of p2m_ram_ro. This could be a further step to >> be done in the future, if necessary. >> >>> If not maybe it's time to go all the way and make iommu page table >>> construction part of domain create and then we simplify a lot of >>> code and we don't need any flag/refcount like this at all. >> >> I've said this before: I don't think it should be a requirement to >> know at the time of the creation of a VM whether it'll eventually >> have a pass-through device assigned. Furthermore you realize that >> this suggestion of yours is contrary to what you've said further up: >> This way you'd make the two things exclusive of one another without >> any recourse. > > Yes, I realize the suggestions are contradictory. My point is that > adding IOMMU pages to a running domain is tricky and leads to issues > like the one you are trying to solve with the ram_ro_used flag. > The whole subsystem is in need of an overhaul anyway so I guess this > band-aid is ok for now. Thanks. I wonder whether I may translate this into R-b or A-b? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |