[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCHv2 10/12] tap: add vhost/vhostfd options

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 03:53:30PM +0000, Paul Brook wrote:
> > >> The key difference is that these regions are created and destroyed
> > >> rarely and in such a way that the destruction is visible to the guest.
> > >
> > > So you're making ram unmap an asynchronous process, and requiring that
> > > the address space not be reused until that umap has completed?
> > 
> > It technically already would be.  If you've got a pending DMA
> > transaction and you try to hot unplug badness will happen.  This is
> > something that is certainly exploitable.
> 
> Hmm, I guess we probably want to make this work with all mappings then. DMA to 
> a ram backed PCI BAR (e.g. video ram) is certainly feasible.

This used to be possible with PCI/PCI-X.  But as far as I know, with PCI
Express, devices can not access each other's BARs.

> Technically it's not the unmap that causes badness, it's freeing the 
> underlying ram.
> 
> For these reasons I'm tempted to push the refcounting down to the ram 
> allocation level. This has a couple of nice properties.
> 
> Firstly we don't care about dynamic allocation any more. We just say that 
> mapping changes may not effect active DMA transactions. If virtio chooses to 
> define that the vring DMA transaction starts when the device is enabled and 
> ends when disabled, that's fine by me.  This probably requires revisiting the 
> memory barrier issues - barriers are pointless if you don't guarantee cache 
> coherence (i.e. no bounce buffers).
> 
> Secondly, ram deallocation is not guest visible. The guest visible parts 
> (memory unmapping) can happen immediately, and we avoid a whole set of 
> unplug/replug race conditions. We may want to delay the completion of a 
> monitor hotplug command until the actual deallocation occurs, but that's a 
> largely separate issue.
> 
> Paul