All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: qemu-arm@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	qemu-riscv@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/pci-host/gpex: Don't fault for unmapped parts of MMIO and PIO windows
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 18:35:08 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210322183320-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210322201336.9539-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org>

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:13:36PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Currently the gpex PCI controller implements no special behaviour for
> guest accesses to areas of the PIO and MMIO where it has not mapped
> any PCI devices, which means that for Arm you end up with a CPU
> exception due to a data abort.
> 
> Most host OSes expect "like an x86 PC" behaviour, where bad accesses
> like this return -1 for reads and ignore writes.  In the interests of
> not being surprising, make host CPU accesses to these windows behave
> as -1/discard where there's no mapped PCI device.
> 
> Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
> Fixes: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1918917
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>

Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>

BTW it looks like launchpad butchered the lore.kernel.org
link so one can't find out what was the guest issue this is
fixing. Want to include a bit more data in the commit log
instead?

> ---
> Not convinced that this is 6.0 material, because IMHO the
> kernel shouldn't be doing this in the first place.
> Do we need to have the property machinery so that old
> virt-5.2 etc retain the previous behaviour ?
> ---
>  include/hw/pci-host/gpex.h |  2 ++
>  hw/pci-host/gpex.c         | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/hw/pci-host/gpex.h b/include/hw/pci-host/gpex.h
> index d48a020a952..ad876ecd209 100644
> --- a/include/hw/pci-host/gpex.h
> +++ b/include/hw/pci-host/gpex.h
> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct GPEXHost {
>  
>      MemoryRegion io_ioport;
>      MemoryRegion io_mmio;
> +    MemoryRegion io_ioport_window;
> +    MemoryRegion io_mmio_window;
>      qemu_irq irq[GPEX_NUM_IRQS];
>      int irq_num[GPEX_NUM_IRQS];
>  };
> diff --git a/hw/pci-host/gpex.c b/hw/pci-host/gpex.c
> index 2bdbe7b4561..1f48c89ac6a 100644
> --- a/hw/pci-host/gpex.c
> +++ b/hw/pci-host/gpex.c
> @@ -82,13 +82,46 @@ static void gpex_host_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
>      PCIExpressHost *pex = PCIE_HOST_BRIDGE(dev);
>      int i;
>  
> +    /*
> +     * Note that the MemoryRegions io_mmio and io_ioport that we pass
> +     * to pci_register_root_bus() are not the same as the
> +     * MemoryRegions io_mmio_window and io_ioport_window that we
> +     * expose as SysBus MRs. The difference is in the behaviour of
> +     * accesses to addresses where no PCI device has been mapped.
> +     *
> +     * io_mmio and io_ioport are the underlying PCI view of the PCI
> +     * address space, and when a PCI device does a bus master access
> +     * to a bad address this is reported back to it as a transaction
> +     * failure.
> +     *
> +     * io_mmio_window and io_ioport_window implement "unmapped
> +     * addresses read as -1 and ignore writes"; this is traditional
> +     * x86 PC behaviour, which is not mandated by the PCI spec proper
> +     * but expected by much PCI-using guest software, including Linux.
> +     *
> +     * In the interests of not being unnecessarily surprising, we
> +     * implement it in the gpex PCI host controller, by providing the
> +     * _window MRs, which are containers with io ops that implement
> +     * the 'background' behaviour and which hold the real PCI MRs as
> +     * subregions.
> +     */
>      pcie_host_mmcfg_init(pex, PCIE_MMCFG_SIZE_MAX);
>      memory_region_init(&s->io_mmio, OBJECT(s), "gpex_mmio", UINT64_MAX);
>      memory_region_init(&s->io_ioport, OBJECT(s), "gpex_ioport", 64 * 1024);
>  
> +    memory_region_init_io(&s->io_mmio_window, OBJECT(s),
> +                          &unassigned_io_ops, OBJECT(s),
> +                          "gpex_mmio_window", UINT64_MAX);
> +    memory_region_init_io(&s->io_ioport_window, OBJECT(s),
> +                          &unassigned_io_ops, OBJECT(s),
> +                          "gpex_ioport_window", 64 * 1024);
> +
> +    memory_region_add_subregion(&s->io_mmio_window, 0, &s->io_mmio);
> +    memory_region_add_subregion(&s->io_ioport_window, 0, &s->io_ioport);
> +
>      sysbus_init_mmio(sbd, &pex->mmio);
> -    sysbus_init_mmio(sbd, &s->io_mmio);
> -    sysbus_init_mmio(sbd, &s->io_ioport);
> +    sysbus_init_mmio(sbd, &s->io_mmio_window);
> +    sysbus_init_mmio(sbd, &s->io_ioport_window);
>      for (i = 0; i < GPEX_NUM_IRQS; i++) {
>          sysbus_init_irq(sbd, &s->irq[i]);
>          s->irq_num[i] = -1;
> -- 
> 2.20.1



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: qemu-riscv@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw/pci-host/gpex: Don't fault for unmapped parts of MMIO and PIO windows
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 18:35:08 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210322183320-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210322201336.9539-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org>

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 08:13:36PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Currently the gpex PCI controller implements no special behaviour for
> guest accesses to areas of the PIO and MMIO where it has not mapped
> any PCI devices, which means that for Arm you end up with a CPU
> exception due to a data abort.
> 
> Most host OSes expect "like an x86 PC" behaviour, where bad accesses
> like this return -1 for reads and ignore writes.  In the interests of
> not being surprising, make host CPU accesses to these windows behave
> as -1/discard where there's no mapped PCI device.
> 
> Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
> Fixes: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1918917
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>

Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>

BTW it looks like launchpad butchered the lore.kernel.org
link so one can't find out what was the guest issue this is
fixing. Want to include a bit more data in the commit log
instead?

> ---
> Not convinced that this is 6.0 material, because IMHO the
> kernel shouldn't be doing this in the first place.
> Do we need to have the property machinery so that old
> virt-5.2 etc retain the previous behaviour ?
> ---
>  include/hw/pci-host/gpex.h |  2 ++
>  hw/pci-host/gpex.c         | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/hw/pci-host/gpex.h b/include/hw/pci-host/gpex.h
> index d48a020a952..ad876ecd209 100644
> --- a/include/hw/pci-host/gpex.h
> +++ b/include/hw/pci-host/gpex.h
> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct GPEXHost {
>  
>      MemoryRegion io_ioport;
>      MemoryRegion io_mmio;
> +    MemoryRegion io_ioport_window;
> +    MemoryRegion io_mmio_window;
>      qemu_irq irq[GPEX_NUM_IRQS];
>      int irq_num[GPEX_NUM_IRQS];
>  };
> diff --git a/hw/pci-host/gpex.c b/hw/pci-host/gpex.c
> index 2bdbe7b4561..1f48c89ac6a 100644
> --- a/hw/pci-host/gpex.c
> +++ b/hw/pci-host/gpex.c
> @@ -82,13 +82,46 @@ static void gpex_host_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
>      PCIExpressHost *pex = PCIE_HOST_BRIDGE(dev);
>      int i;
>  
> +    /*
> +     * Note that the MemoryRegions io_mmio and io_ioport that we pass
> +     * to pci_register_root_bus() are not the same as the
> +     * MemoryRegions io_mmio_window and io_ioport_window that we
> +     * expose as SysBus MRs. The difference is in the behaviour of
> +     * accesses to addresses where no PCI device has been mapped.
> +     *
> +     * io_mmio and io_ioport are the underlying PCI view of the PCI
> +     * address space, and when a PCI device does a bus master access
> +     * to a bad address this is reported back to it as a transaction
> +     * failure.
> +     *
> +     * io_mmio_window and io_ioport_window implement "unmapped
> +     * addresses read as -1 and ignore writes"; this is traditional
> +     * x86 PC behaviour, which is not mandated by the PCI spec proper
> +     * but expected by much PCI-using guest software, including Linux.
> +     *
> +     * In the interests of not being unnecessarily surprising, we
> +     * implement it in the gpex PCI host controller, by providing the
> +     * _window MRs, which are containers with io ops that implement
> +     * the 'background' behaviour and which hold the real PCI MRs as
> +     * subregions.
> +     */
>      pcie_host_mmcfg_init(pex, PCIE_MMCFG_SIZE_MAX);
>      memory_region_init(&s->io_mmio, OBJECT(s), "gpex_mmio", UINT64_MAX);
>      memory_region_init(&s->io_ioport, OBJECT(s), "gpex_ioport", 64 * 1024);
>  
> +    memory_region_init_io(&s->io_mmio_window, OBJECT(s),
> +                          &unassigned_io_ops, OBJECT(s),
> +                          "gpex_mmio_window", UINT64_MAX);
> +    memory_region_init_io(&s->io_ioport_window, OBJECT(s),
> +                          &unassigned_io_ops, OBJECT(s),
> +                          "gpex_ioport_window", 64 * 1024);
> +
> +    memory_region_add_subregion(&s->io_mmio_window, 0, &s->io_mmio);
> +    memory_region_add_subregion(&s->io_ioport_window, 0, &s->io_ioport);
> +
>      sysbus_init_mmio(sbd, &pex->mmio);
> -    sysbus_init_mmio(sbd, &s->io_mmio);
> -    sysbus_init_mmio(sbd, &s->io_ioport);
> +    sysbus_init_mmio(sbd, &s->io_mmio_window);
> +    sysbus_init_mmio(sbd, &s->io_ioport_window);
>      for (i = 0; i < GPEX_NUM_IRQS; i++) {
>          sysbus_init_irq(sbd, &s->irq[i]);
>          s->irq_num[i] = -1;
> -- 
> 2.20.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-03-22 22:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-22 20:13 [PATCH] hw/pci-host/gpex: Don't fault for unmapped parts of MMIO and PIO windows Peter Maydell
2021-03-22 20:13 ` Peter Maydell
2021-03-22 21:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-22 21:34   ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-22 22:35 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2021-03-22 22:35   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-03-23 10:54   ` Peter Maydell
2021-03-23 10:54     ` Peter Maydell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210322183320-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
    --to=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
    --cc=qemu-arm@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-riscv@nongnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.