[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 1/7] x86: provide executable fixmap facility
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 08:56:55PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 22/01/2020 20:23, Wei Liu wrote: > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/boot/x86_64.S b/xen/arch/x86/boot/x86_64.S > > index 1cbf5acdfb..605d01f1dd 100644 > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/boot/x86_64.S > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/boot/x86_64.S > > @@ -85,7 +85,15 @@ GLOBAL(l2_directmap) > > * 4k page. > > */ > > Adjust this comment as well? I thought it was still accurate, so I didn't touch it. Now it reads: /* * L2 mapping the Xen text/data/bss region, constructed dynamically. * Executable fixmap region is hooked up statically. * Uses 1x * 4k page. */ Does this sound good to you? > > > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/config.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/config.h > > index d0cfbb70a8..4fa56ea0a9 100644 > > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/config.h > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/config.h > > @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ extern unsigned char boot_edid_info[128]; > > /* Slot 261: high read-only compat machine-to-phys conversion table (1GB). > > */ > > #define HIRO_COMPAT_MPT_VIRT_START RDWR_COMPAT_MPT_VIRT_END > > #define HIRO_COMPAT_MPT_VIRT_END (HIRO_COMPAT_MPT_VIRT_START + GB(1)) > > -/* Slot 261: xen text, static data and bss (1GB). */ > > +/* Slot 261: xen text, static data, bss and executable fixmap (1GB). */ > > And per-cpu stubs. Might as well fix the comment while editing. Ack. > > > #define XEN_VIRT_START (HIRO_COMPAT_MPT_VIRT_END) > > #define XEN_VIRT_END (XEN_VIRT_START + GB(1)) > > > > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/fixmap.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/fixmap.h > > index 9fb2f47946..c2a9d2b50a 100644 > > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/fixmap.h > > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/fixmap.h > > @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ > > #include <asm/page.h> > > > > #define FIXADDR_TOP (VMAP_VIRT_END - PAGE_SIZE) > > +#define FIXADDR_X_TOP (XEN_VIRT_END - PAGE_SIZE) > > +/* This constant is derived from enum fixed_addresses_x below */ > > +#define MAX_FIXADDR_X_SIZE (2 << PAGE_SHIFT) > > Answering slightly out of order, for clarity: > > FIXADDR_X_SIZE should be 0 or 1 by the end of this patch. > > As for MAX_FIXADDR_X_SIZE, how about simply > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV_GUEST) ? That should work, even in a linker > script. > It should be at least 1<<PAGE_SHIFT because __end_of_fixed_addresses_x is at least 1. So for now it can be #define MAX_FIXADDR_X_SIZE ((IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV_GUEST) + 1) << PAGE_SHIFT) > Somewhere, there should be a BUILD_BUG_ON() cross-checking > MAX_FIXADDR_X_SIZE and __end_of_fixed_addresses_x. We don't yet have a > build_assertions() in x86/mm.c, so I guess now is the time to gain one. No, the build_assertions shouldn't be necessary. MAX_FIXADDR_X_SIZE is intentionally set to the maximum possible value, while __end_of_fixed_addresses_x is subject to change according to configuration. They can differ. Unless you're talking about adding CONFIG_HYPERV_GUEST to MAX_FIXADDR_X_SIZE like I mentioned above? > > > > > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ > > > > @@ -89,6 +92,31 @@ static inline unsigned long virt_to_fix(const unsigned > > long vaddr) > > return __virt_to_fix(vaddr); > > } > > > > +enum fixed_addresses_x { > > + /* Index 0 is reserved since fix_x_to_virt(0) == FIXADDR_X_TOP. */ > > + FIX_X_RESERVED, > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HYPERV_GUEST > > + FIX_X_HYPERV_HCALL, > > +#endif > > + __end_of_fixed_addresses_x > > +}; > > + > > +#define FIXADDR_X_SIZE (__end_of_fixed_addresses_x << PAGE_SHIFT) > > -1, seeing as 0 is reserved. > What does -1 mean here? > > +#define FIXADDR_X_START (FIXADDR_X_TOP - FIXADDR_X_SIZE) > > + > > +extern void __set_fixmap_x( > > + enum fixed_addresses_x idx, unsigned long mfn, unsigned long flags); > > + > > +#define set_fixmap_x(idx, phys) \ > > + __set_fixmap_x(idx, (phys)>>PAGE_SHIFT, PAGE_HYPERVISOR_RX | > > MAP_SMALL_PAGES) > > + > > +#define clear_fixmap_x(idx) __set_fixmap_x(idx, 0, 0) > > + > > +#define __fix_x_to_virt(x) (FIXADDR_X_TOP - ((x) << PAGE_SHIFT)) > > +#define __virt_to_fix_x(x) ((FIXADDR_X_TOP - ((x)&PAGE_MASK)) >> > > PAGE_SHIFT) > > The &PAGE_MASK is redundant, given the following shift, but can't be > optimised out because of its effect on the high 12 bits of the address > as well. These helpers aren't safe to wild inputs, even with the > &PAGE_MASK, so I'd just drop it. > OK. I will drop it. Wei. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |