From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A862D1B414B for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:38:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735843121; cv=none; b=nfSDTgXUQzc7q58DzRYIMbUpZ2QpzySq7rqsePnaDEFhJSJCRJNp6AEGNCv0BLy9Q2Dk9EH1794RrBJTIU3Y3A0ToRtuPYY2xFsxSY+DIBop2w4ckNyKhsG/JHiwUjg1vorqQ9eCPwAKtR88T3KyZe0lAmUNhPaIYd2REgxyVm4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735843121; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0zqlzsWDfKuygTxYYeINXmJlDOd9Qwxl5HLYWpdOS6Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FuaemC42oSF7rclCmpb8K1xkHng9/G7wTiz4qLxrR3mUf3XoQmaRL4CgIGZM9UbNFYN+ggQ+0KWzT6HD7i20AqZQuOgNSmCExPB1IHxNgbbS6xv4/KbxTPlQ1ijxlxCoQdRTRb1scDiFHh3xppjYZU9Rphn4A9ds8ZLKR7KaT2k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=Pu0AFRfA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Pu0AFRfA" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1735843118; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OD5aQ3XEGYN1xZMewWq+sHuf8pkwQMdrxxCJiuCySGI=; b=Pu0AFRfAW6Jva/hmMh90QKwxLUzd69WnrG7ozjLHplJfPAR6wfuqpk1YkNy1AyB630gZ/J /4tdPqs8l6J9F0xT7qrE9/9Twn0Z+vcHIO8hHXgKoJtMsU0RkDad9AZViPac7Dq5r/KGI7 HDGObIMXpQgDoZWVvlRRFjwfoePkVmA= Received: from mail-ot1-f72.google.com (mail-ot1-f72.google.com [209.85.210.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-119-PwSDR32wO3aNAbddb3FeKQ-1; Thu, 02 Jan 2025 13:38:37 -0500 X-MC-Unique: PwSDR32wO3aNAbddb3FeKQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: PwSDR32wO3aNAbddb3FeKQ Received: by mail-ot1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-71e165f53ffso2912756a34.0 for ; Thu, 02 Jan 2025 10:38:37 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1735843116; x=1736447916; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OD5aQ3XEGYN1xZMewWq+sHuf8pkwQMdrxxCJiuCySGI=; b=D1v/zo9xwaLWSQUhHd88aWfM0Qq4RjwiIVQ4TjTV2nKqupV6wMNeKrH/+08Ub0KM1r I2aTQpw47qcrtNF+lW6dZcXXgIxwpw2yPTPZuUV/muVV8itwsvw0XrcqpgRCFUgeu0Kr 9EQ6MBvte+lyiTYZPKGDeVRSGoW0XQnM+H5r34J5BVcREG2MYyRt7L54gzepW6BkiBky wZtsyaP13nYJ2Ufouyg8dRsR/u0DIK7YkQ4vqXucLwIDm0nqQhP+iEVN1UD47h7gf2IJ Om5ISXzASF2lU39T5Qx0AuEh7WLFnlBLcop73U7tcYUoP/DTY/YDTehVwaqkJjrx0ZRk JpZA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUkEpEWf/ZEtThDqgjQcA6yXkYdQsC2chuxoDVN/svPXzjlqBvJ7E3S/Jztzuyw5XZ4UO0=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxCZKPCrWHlZbqDQYGAV2cdkjN2N5RP4b9Yznlsz46xR/8RG8ML hJqVzDddUSAYzJsS6XYlCC8bmXwBTFo6Sw5Ssszq8cB9Mvji5+mKRDbp6UjSzDp900FnQx4y/h9 3HTYMbWD10N/o/yYzSseOO0LtX3LJ9yXwPMb3f0slf2X6oa49XA== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctg16suxrnHRq80AmS97Rau7AW5Jzq6Z22TNCAzJ2YfVPOIMPRYVJqKpUY3B7x hDS6sam8Xp1ipEfZUXCHuH3uTO+NElAbhKg3/yM0kyrYyoun6U9aywJAmkKa9jbE9s0gyKm+6RX c2Z8CFWArp8M0evqGZO/0yA++vBG4LZXlMNAtl5OvQphQ7VHB93bBT1xqMmffyc+MzdqPJAK1Ts JLY9fzv9d5RVbR/p6Iaws9by5T76x+YcrG0cjHEcTp/3+l1P7JpCW1Edh76 X-Received: by 2002:a4a:cb02:0:b0:5f2:b6ac:280d with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5f62e643b13mr7039409eaf.0.1735843116543; Thu, 02 Jan 2025 10:38:36 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHVDaXie8HBCSJH+P8ZzXC79A6opQUQfeLWQ3fdt9DAlI2AjF12plGBMJM6bxgHF/9XerH7zA== X-Received: by 2002:a4a:cb02:0:b0:5f2:b6ac:280d with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-5f62e643b13mr7039403eaf.0.1735843116205; Thu, 02 Jan 2025 10:38:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from redhat.com ([38.15.36.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 006d021491bc7-5f4db60d746sm7317340eaf.22.2025.01.02.10.38.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 02 Jan 2025 10:38:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 11:38:32 -0700 From: Alex Williamson To: Peter Xu Cc: Precific , Athul Krishna , Bjorn Helgaas , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux PCI , "regressions@lists.linux.dev" Subject: Re: [bugzilla-daemon@kernel.org: [Bug 219619] New: vfio-pci: screen graphics artifacts after 6.12 kernel upgrade] Message-ID: <20250102113832.4d5c101a.alex.williamson@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20250102100402.33fa8435.alex.williamson@redhat.com> References: <20241222223604.GA3735586@bhelgaas> <16ea1922-c9ce-4d73-b9b6-8365ca3fcf32@posteo.de> <20241230182737.154cd33a.alex.williamson@redhat.com> <20241231090733.5cc5504a.alex.williamson@redhat.com> <20250102100402.33fa8435.alex.williamson@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.43; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 10:04:02 -0700 Alex Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 11:39:23 -0500 > Peter Xu wrote: > > OTOH, a pure question here is whether we should check pfn+pgoff instead of > > pgoff alone. I have no idea how firmware would allocate BAR resources, > > especially on start address alignments. I assume that needs to be somehow > > relevant to the max size of the bar, probably the start address should > > always be aligned to that max bar size? If so, there should have no > > functional difference checking either pfn+pgoff or pgoff. It could be a > > matter of readability in that case, saying that the limitation is about pfn > > (of pgtable) rather than directly relevant to the offset of the bar. > > Yes, I'm working on the proper patch now that we have a root cause and > I'm changing this to test alignment of pfn+pgoff. The PCI BARs > themselves are required to have natural alignment, but the vma mapping > the BAR could be at an offset from the base of the BAR, which is > accounted for in our local vma_to_pfn() function. So I agree that > pfn+pgoff is the more complete fix, which I'll post soon, and hope that > Precific can re-verify the fix. Thanks, The proposed fix is now posted here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250102183416.1841878-1-alex.williamson@redhat.com Please reply there with Tested-by and Reviewed-by as available. Thanks, Alex