From: Ani Sinha <anisinha@redhat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
"Marcel Apfelbaum" <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
"Eduardo Habkost" <eduardo@habkost.net>,
"Igor Mammedov" <imammedo@redhat.com>,
"Xiao Guangrong" <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>,
"Yanan Wang" <wangyanan55@huawei.com>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mem/x86: add processor address space check for VM memory
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 19:42:44 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1911B17C-24F2-406B-9ED4-DCF98E794A09@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <77284898-c540-31ac-d438-ebff52f6d75d@redhat.com>
> On 08-Sep-2023, at 3:58 PM, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 08.09.23 11:50, Ani Sinha wrote:
>> Depending on the number of available address bits of the current processor, a
>> VM can only use a certain maximum amount of memory and no more. This change
>> makes sure that a VM is not configured to have more memory than what it can use
>> with the current processor settings when started. Additionally, the change adds
>> checks during memory hotplug to ensure that the VM does not end up getting more
>> memory than what it can actually use after hotplug.
>> Currently, both the above checks are only for pc (x86) platform.
>> Buglink: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235403
>> CC: imammedo@redhat.com
>> Signed-off-by: Ani Sinha <anisinha@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> hw/i386/pc.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> hw/mem/memory-device.c | 6 ++++++
>> include/hw/boards.h | 9 +++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 60 insertions(+)
>> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c
>> index 54838c0c41..f84e4c4916 100644
>> --- a/hw/i386/pc.c
>> +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c
>> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
>> #include "hw/i386/topology.h"
>> #include "hw/i386/fw_cfg.h"
>> #include "hw/i386/vmport.h"
>> +#include "hw/mem/memory-device.h"
>> #include "sysemu/cpus.h"
>> #include "hw/block/fdc.h"
>> #include "hw/ide/internal.h"
>> @@ -1006,6 +1007,17 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms,
>> exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> }
>> + /*
>> + * check if the VM started with more ram configured than max physical
>> + * address available with the current processor.
>> + */
>> + if (machine->ram_size > maxphysaddr + 1) {
>> + error_report("Address space limit 0x%"PRIx64" < 0x%"PRIx64
>> + " (max configured memory), phys-bits too low (%u)",
>> + maxphysaddr, machine->ram_size, cpu->phys_bits);
>> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> + }
>
> ... I know that this used to be a problem in the past, but nowadays we already do have similar checks in place?
>
> $ ./build/qemu-system-x86_64 -m 4T -machine q35,memory-backend=mem0 -object memory-backend-ram,id=mem0,size=4T,reserve=off
> qemu-system-x86_64: Address space limit 0xffffffffff < 0x5077fffffff phys-bits too low (40)
So you are saying that this is OK and should be allowed? On a 32 bit processor that can access only 4G memory, I am spinning up a 10G VM.
$ ./qemu-system-x86_64 -cpu pentium -m size=10G, -monitor stdio -qmp tcp:0:5555,server,nowait
QEMU 8.1.50 monitor - type 'help' for more information
VNC server running on ::1:5900
(qemu)
>
> Why is that not sufficient or why can't that be extended?
>
>> +
>> /*
>> * Split single memory region and use aliases to address portions of it,
>> * done for backwards compatibility with older qemus.
>> @@ -1845,6 +1857,38 @@ static bool pc_hotplug_allowed(MachineState *ms, DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
>> return true;
>> }
>> +static bool pc_mem_hotplug_allowed(MachineState *ms,
>> + MemoryRegion *mr, Error **errp)
>> +{
>> + hwaddr maxphysaddr;
>> + uint64_t dimm_size, size, ram_size, total_mem_size;
>> + X86CPU *cpu = X86_CPU(first_cpu);
>> +
>> + if (!mr) {
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> +
>> + dimm_size = ms->device_memory->dimm_size;
>> + size = memory_region_size(mr);
>> + ram_size = (uint64_t) ms->ram_size;
>> + total_mem_size = ram_size + dimm_size + size;
>
> That's wrong. The sizes does not tell you where the devices are actually located in the address space.
>
>> +
>> + maxphysaddr = ((hwaddr)1 << cpu->phys_bits) - 1;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * total memory after hotplug will exceed the maximum physical
>> + * address limit of the processor. So hotplug cannot be allowed.
>> + */
>> + if ((total_mem_size > (uint64_t)maxphysaddr + 1) &&
>> + (total_mem_size > ram_size + dimm_size)) {
>> + error_setg(errp, "Address space limit 0x%"PRIx64" < 0x%"PRIx64
>> + " phys-bits too low (%u)",
>> + maxphysaddr, total_mem_size, cpu->phys_bits);
>> + return false;
>> + }
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> static void pc_machine_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>> {
>> MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_CLASS(oc);
>> @@ -1870,6 +1914,7 @@ static void pc_machine_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>> assert(!mc->get_hotplug_handler);
>> mc->get_hotplug_handler = pc_get_hotplug_handler;
>> mc->hotplug_allowed = pc_hotplug_allowed;
>> + mc->mem_hotplug_allowed = pc_mem_hotplug_allowed;
>> mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props = x86_cpu_index_to_props;
>> mc->get_default_cpu_node_id = x86_get_default_cpu_node_id;
>> mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids = x86_possible_cpu_arch_ids;
>> diff --git a/hw/mem/memory-device.c b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>> index 667d56bd29..825bc593ae 100644
>> --- a/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>> +++ b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>> @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ static void memory_device_check_addable(MachineState *ms, MemoryRegion *mr,
>> {
>> const uint64_t used_region_size = ms->device_memory->used_region_size;
>> const uint64_t size = memory_region_size(mr);
>> + MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(ms);
>> /* we will need a new memory slot for kvm and vhost */
>> if (kvm_enabled() && !kvm_has_free_slot(ms)) {
>> @@ -68,6 +69,11 @@ static void memory_device_check_addable(MachineState *ms, MemoryRegion *mr,
>> return;
>> }
>> + if (mc->mem_hotplug_allowed &&
>> + (!(mc->mem_hotplug_allowed(ms, mr, errp)))) {
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> /* will we exceed the total amount of memory specified */
>> if (used_region_size + size < used_region_size ||
>> used_region_size + size > ms->maxram_size - ms->ram_size) {
>> diff --git a/include/hw/boards.h b/include/hw/boards.h
>> index 3b541ffd24..84b199ee51 100644
>> --- a/include/hw/boards.h
>> +++ b/include/hw/boards.h
>> @@ -210,6 +210,13 @@ typedef struct {
>> * false is returned, an error must be set to show the reason of
>> * the rejection. If the hook is not provided, all hotplug will be
>> * allowed.
>> + * @mem_hotplug_allowed:
>> + * If the hook is provided, then it'll be called for each memory device
>> + * hotplug to check whether the mem device hotplug is allowed. Return
>> + * true to grant allowance or false to reject the hotplug. When
>> + * false is returned, an error must be set to show the reason of
>> + * the rejection. If the hook is not provided, all mem hotplug will be
>> + * allowed.
>
> That's nasty.
>
> 1) The machine hotplug handler already is in charge of plugging such devices. It could perform such checks there but,
>
> 2) Why even allow the device memory region to exceed maxphysaddr?
>
>
> Instead, we should probably fail creating the device managed region if it would end up exceeding maxphysaddr.
>
> pc_memory_init()-> ... -> machine_memory_devices_init()
>
> Can't we make sure in pc_memory_init() that we can never have memory devices being plugged into inaccessible regions? Or check back later once we know the limit (if not already known)?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-08 14:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-08 9:50 [PATCH] mem/x86: add processor address space check for VM memory Ani Sinha
2023-09-08 10:28 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-09-08 14:12 ` Ani Sinha [this message]
2023-09-08 14:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-09-08 15:13 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-08 16:02 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-09-08 16:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-09-12 10:41 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-12 15:34 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-09-14 5:53 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-14 8:37 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-09-14 11:21 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-14 11:49 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-09-15 10:38 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-18 9:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-09-18 10:07 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-18 10:09 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-09-18 10:11 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-18 10:14 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-18 10:19 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-09-18 10:54 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-18 10:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-09-18 11:00 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-18 11:02 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-18 11:02 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-09-18 11:04 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-14 17:11 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-16 5:17 ` Ani Sinha
2023-09-08 16:04 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
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=1911B17C-24F2-406B-9ED4-DCF98E794A09@redhat.com \
--to=anisinha@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=eduardo@habkost.net \
--cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=philmd@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
--cc=wangyanan55@huawei.com \
--cc=xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).