From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Subject: Re: PCI-passthrough for 32 bit guests and high MMIO
	addresses
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:17:16 +0100
Message-ID: <546F577C.6080207@suse.com>
References: <546F4E86.8060801@suse.com> <546F60470200007800049D06@suse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <jgross@suse.com>) id 1XrpxW-0006ze-Sr
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:17:18 +0000
Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254])
	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66282ABE2
	for <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>;
	Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:17:17 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <546F60470200007800049D06@suse.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 11/21/2014 03:54 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 21.11.14 at 15:39, <JGross@suse.com> wrote:
>> Trying to do PCI-passthrough with a 32-bit pv-domain I passed the
>> wrong device to the domain. The MMIO address was too large for a
>> MFN of a 32-bit system (it was 380003200000-3800036fffff).
>>
>> Instead of rejecting the operation Xen tried to perform it resulting
>> in a (quite understandable) failure in the domU.
>>
>> I think either the hypervisor or the tools should refuse to do
>> PCI-passthrough in this case.
>
> What's wrong with this large an address? 32-bit PV uses PAE, i.e.
> can map them. If the kernel isn't capable of that that's not
> something to make Xen (or the tools) refuse such assignments. I
> would only see an issue if a hypercall interface involved here isn't
> using wide enough fields (but these addresses should be read
> from the BARs, i.e. no hypercall involved).

The MFN format is part of the pv-ABI. And a MFN of a 32-bit pv-guest is
only 32 bits (even if don't take the invalid bit into account).

Should a pv-guest really be capable to map an address outside it's
accessible MFN-range?

Are the tools capable of processing such a mapping in case of saving the
domain?


Juergen