From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832E0C4360C for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:41:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57A6D206B7 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:41:42 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 57A6D206B7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:47008 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iDjwh-0007Zd-O3 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:41:39 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51506) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iDjSV-0002hn-Bx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:10:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iDjSS-0006DX-Qh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:10:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40246) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iDjSS-00064Q-Gr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:10:24 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f199.google.com (mail-pg1-f199.google.com [209.85.215.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 545202A09B1 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 06:10:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f199.google.com with SMTP id h189so2938383pgc.4 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 23:10:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Q3VcwwfIJDnhtPHgtff591ka965pgfBVQAYecX/DSPM=; b=bgMXK4hmiqZwFfued2FcHen9qhcta/DO35iE5x4777VSd6kGt17qdpt4XRGTCFmi7D +t16ojfA7ApbtRMgfPNlPCWaJiZthlAVFKf12JM5WtWRWL0eubRcCKSnfx+KOJqy+Y4t eQ1yX8Sr1Whaj2Pp/uKlone2U6mXAY/DISUeWwMvUzsn1PgVDckkzQSXGdtrGBMpGyHv g1QfH7dYIHsWQ+ZjKcL3Jw/CKtfD1Jpq/x+7jkVO5Xxuhix8o8c8YCthpo+SmNwytI8u In2O9vlChRqkUXBRqcxCBCu4w2UPhdrRcLZRM0eeASiPV2MrJ1qZvejd1GrEbs9WQFAh 2KiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXowHhbHmwtwQl2qZawEZ7UyLh8PlYMXcr7chKthS/94/N5foF1 9RD/hk/2gTfJI4OtkBb/qG/59B4bV/hkcoKrH8XsExCvq+HJwMH1JNn1s6r+R+1CYC1eKhfV/eR 8H4GBpQ5cUNQ7hVo= X-Received: by 2002:a62:834c:: with SMTP id h73mr2232327pfe.183.1569564621760; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 23:10:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwxmWyNdTjyyHgRfYVtbh/6+ftP0BxAdeEEiRcU55u20E9bPvDaUIQkSuipslo6yZOxZQG0Zw== X-Received: by 2002:a62:834c:: with SMTP id h73mr2232314pfe.183.1569564621514; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 23:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xz-x1 ([209.132.188.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p68sm1981376pfp.9.2019.09.26.23.10.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 26 Sep 2019 23:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:10:11 +0800 From: Peter Xu To: qi1.zhang@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] intel_iommu: TM field should not be in reserved bits Message-ID: <20190927061011.GB9412@xz-x1> References: <20190927045838.2968-1-qi1.zhang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190927045838.2968-1-qi1.zhang@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, rth@twiddle.net, mst@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ehabkost@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:58:38PM +0800, qi1.zhang@intel.com wrote: > From: "Zhang, Qi" > > When dt is supported, TM field should not be Reserved(0). > > Refer to VT-d Spec 9.8 > > Signed-off-by: Zhang, Qi > Signed-off-by: Qi, Yadong > --- > hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 12 ++++++------ > hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------ > 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > --- > Changelog V2: > move dt_supported flag to VTD_SPTE_PAGE_LX_RSVD_MASK and VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_LX_RSVD_MASK > > diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c > index f1de8fdb75..35222cf55c 100644 > --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c > +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c > @@ -3548,13 +3548,13 @@ static void vtd_init(IntelIOMMUState *s) > * Rsvd field masks for spte > */ > vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[0] = ~0ULL; > - vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[1] = VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L1_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits); > - vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[2] = VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L2_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits); > - vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[3] = VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L3_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits); > + vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[1] = VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L1_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits, x86_iommu->dt_supported); > + vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[2] = VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L2_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits, x86_iommu->dt_supported); > + vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[3] = VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L3_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits, x86_iommu->dt_supported); > vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[4] = VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L4_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits); > - vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[5] = VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L1_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits); > - vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[6] = VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L2_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits); > - vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[7] = VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L3_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits); > + vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[5] = VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L1_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits, x86_iommu->dt_supported); > + vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[6] = VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L2_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits, x86_iommu->dt_supported); > + vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[7] = VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L3_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits, x86_iommu->dt_supported); > vtd_paging_entry_rsvd_field[8] = VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L4_RSVD_MASK(s->aw_bits); Should this TM bit only affects leaves? Say, entry 1 (4K), 5 (2M), 6 (1G). While this reminded me that I'm totally confused on why we have had entry 7, 8 after all... Are they really used? > > if (x86_iommu_ir_supported(x86_iommu)) { > diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h > index c1235a7063..01f1aa6c86 100644 > --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h > +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h > @@ -387,19 +387,31 @@ typedef union VTDInvDesc VTDInvDesc; > #define VTD_INV_DESC_DEVICE_IOTLB_RSVD_LO 0xffff0000ffe0fff8 > > /* Rsvd field masks for spte */ > -#define VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L1_RSVD_MASK(aw) \ > +#define VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L1_RSVD_MASK(aw, dt_supported) \ > + dt_supported? \ > + (0x800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM | VTD_SL_TM)) : \ > (0x800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM)) This seems strange too in that ~VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) probably covered bits 63-48 for aw==48 case so it should already cover VTD_SL_TM? Meanwhile when I'm reading the spec I see at least bits 61-52 ignored rather than reserved. Thanks, > -#define VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L2_RSVD_MASK(aw) \ > +#define VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L2_RSVD_MASK(aw, dt_supported) \ > + dt_supported? \ > + (0x800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM | VTD_SL_TM)) : \ > (0x800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM)) > -#define VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L3_RSVD_MASK(aw) \ > +#define VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L3_RSVD_MASK(aw, dt_supported) \ > + dt_supported? \ > + (0x800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM | VTD_SL_TM)) : \ > (0x800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM)) > #define VTD_SPTE_PAGE_L4_RSVD_MASK(aw) \ > (0x880ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM)) > -#define VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L1_RSVD_MASK(aw) \ > +#define VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L1_RSVD_MASK(aw, dt_supported) \ > + dt_supported? \ > + (0x800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM | VTD_SL_TM)) : \ > (0x800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM)) > -#define VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L2_RSVD_MASK(aw) \ > +#define VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L2_RSVD_MASK(aw, dt_supported) \ > + dt_supported? \ > + (0x1ff800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM | VTD_SL_TM)) : \ > (0x1ff800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM)) > -#define VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L3_RSVD_MASK(aw) \ > +#define VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L3_RSVD_MASK(aw, dt_supported) \ > + dt_supported? \ > + (0x3ffff800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM | VTD_SL_TM)) : \ > (0x3ffff800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM)) > #define VTD_SPTE_LPAGE_L4_RSVD_MASK(aw) \ > (0x880ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM)) > @@ -506,5 +518,6 @@ typedef struct VTDRootEntry VTDRootEntry; > #define VTD_SL_W (1ULL << 1) > #define VTD_SL_PT_BASE_ADDR_MASK(aw) (~(VTD_PAGE_SIZE - 1) & VTD_HAW_MASK(aw)) > #define VTD_SL_IGN_COM 0xbff0000000000000ULL > +#define VTD_SL_TM (1ULL << 62) > > #endif > -- > 2.20.1 > > -- Peter Xu