From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52460)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>) id 1QjZSU-0001Ym-6t
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:17:15 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>) id 1QjZSM-0007Pk-9V
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:17:13 -0400
Received: from mail.valinux.co.jp ([210.128.90.3]:46688)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>) id 1QjZSL-0007P9-P3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:17:06 -0400
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 01:17:02 +0900
From: Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
Message-ID: <20110720161702.GL3699@valinux.co.jp>
References: <4E25F976.8010200@web.de> <20110720120027.GI3699@valinux.co.jp>
	<4E26C6C5.3060505@siemens.com> <4E26E5BC.6040508@siemens.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E26E5BC.6040508@siemens.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] pci: Length-align config space accesses
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:27:08PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-07-20 14:15, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2011-07-20 14:00, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> >> Hi. This clean up looks good basically.
> > 
> > Oops, forgot to cc you. Sorry.
> > 
> >> But when conventional pci device is accessed via MMCONFIG area,
> >> addr &= addr_mask doesn't work as expected.
> >> The config area of [256, 4K) of conventional pci should have no effect.
> > 
> > Mmh, I see. Looks like we need to split accesses at this boundary and
> > executed them separately.
> 
> Nope, no such issue: we already automatically split up accesses that
> span the legacy/extended boundary. Just like so far, legacy config space
> handlers have to filter out requests that address regions >= 256.

For example, when accessing to offset 257 of conventional pci device,
the access is routed to offset 1 due to the masking.
Such overwrapping isn't correct.
-- 
yamahata