Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/PVH: Support relocatable dom0 kernels

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:59:19PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On 2024-03-14 11:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 14.03.2024 15:33, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 09:51:22AM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > > > On 2024-03-14 05:48, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 03:30:21PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -234,6 +235,17 @@ elf_errorstatus elf_xen_parse_note(struct 
> > > > > > elf_binary *elf,
> > > > > >                    elf_note_numeric_array(elf, note, 8, 0),
> > > > > >                    elf_note_numeric_array(elf, note, 8, 1));
> > > > > >            break;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +    case XEN_ELFNOTE_PVH_RELOCATION:
> > > > > > +        if ( elf_uval(elf, note, descsz) != 3 * sizeof(uint64_t) )
> > > > > > +            return -1;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +        parms->phys_min = elf_note_numeric_array(elf, note, 8, 0);
> > > > > > +        parms->phys_max = elf_note_numeric_array(elf, note, 8, 1);
> > > > > > +        parms->phys_align = elf_note_numeric_array(elf, note, 8, 
> > > > > > 2);
> > > > > 
> > > > > Size for those needs to be 4 (32bits) as the entry point is in 32bit
> > > > > mode?  I don't see how we can start past the 4GB boundary.
> > > > 
> > > > I specified the note as 3x 64bit values.  It seemed simpler than trying 
> > > > to
> > > > support both 32bit and 64bit depending on the kernel arch.  Also, just 
> > > > using
> > > > 64bit provides room in case it is needed in the future.
> > > 
> > > Why do you say depending on the kernel arch?
> > > 
> > > PVH doesn't know the bitness of the kernel, as the kernel entry point
> > > is always started in protected 32bit mode.  We should just support
> > > 32bit values, regardless of the kernel bitness, because that's the
> > > only range that's suitable in order to jump into the entry point.
> > > 
> > > Note how XEN_ELFNOTE_PHYS32_ENTRY is also unconditionally a 32bit
> > > integer.
> 
> Linux defines PHYS32_ENTRY with _ASM_PTR, so it's 32 or 64 bit to match how
> the kernel is compiled.  The Xen code parses the integer according to the
> size of the note.

I think that's wrong, PHYS32_ENTRY should strictly be a 32bit integer,
in fact the field in struct elf_dom_parms is an uint32_t, so Linux
using _ASM_PTR seems bogus, it should unconditionally use .long
regardless of the kernel bitness.

> > > > Do you want the note to be changed to 3x 32bit values?
> > > 
> > > Unless anyone objects, yes, that's would be my preference.
> > 
> > As mentioned elsewhere, unless the entire note is meant to be x86-specific,
> > this fixed-32-bit property then would want limiting to x86.
> 
> PVH is only implemented for x86 today.  Are you saying that the comment
> should just specify the values are 32bit for x86?  If the note is reused for
> other arches, then they can specify their usage?
> 
> If this note is to be a variably sized array of values, then the elements
> should be of fixed size.  Otherwise parsing is ambiguous without, say,
> another field specifying element size.
> 
> Maybe XEN_ELFNOTE_PHYS32_RELOC would be a better name to complement the
> PHYS32_ENTRY?

IMO the '32' part of PHYS32_ENTRY is kind of redundant, given the CPU
state when using such entry point it's impossible to use 64bit
addresses.  I would be fine with using XEN_ELFNOTE_PHYS_RELOC or some
such.  Anyway, this is just a name so I'm not going to opposed if Jan
and yourself prefer to keep using PHYS32.

Thanks, Roger.