From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52777) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QjZTu-0001y2-VK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:18:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QjZTt-0007bp-Gh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:18:42 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28408) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QjZTs-0007bb-WA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:18:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:19:07 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20110720161907.GE8077@redhat.com> References: <4E25F976.8010200@web.de> <20110720120027.GI3699@valinux.co.jp> <4E26C6C5.3060505@siemens.com> <4E26E5BC.6040508@siemens.com> <20110720161702.GL3699@valinux.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110720161702.GL3699@valinux.co.jp> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] pci: Length-align config space accesses List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Isaku Yamahata Cc: Jan Kiszka , qemu-devel , Avi Kivity On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 01:17:02AM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > 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. Can guest trigger this on some systems? I think it can't on a pc, right? > -- > yamahata