From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: thuth@redhat.com, Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
david@redhat.com, richard.henderson@linaro.org,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pasic@linux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@de.ibm.com, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s390x/pci: Fix memory_region_access_valid call
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:51:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201218175119.5f43b378.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52c93c12-b9a4-99ba-186c-4db2e6267b9f@linux.ibm.com>
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:40:50 +0100
Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 12/18/20 4:32 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 15:32:08 +0100
> > Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/18/20 12:04 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:37:38 +0100
> >>> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 12/17/20 11:16 PM, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> >>>>> In pcistb_service_handler, a call is made to validate that the memory
> >>>>> region can be accessed. However, the call is made using the entire length
> >>>>> of the pcistb operation, which can be larger than the allowed memory
> >>>>> access size (8). Since we already know that the provided buffer is a
> >>>>> multiple of 8, fix the call to memory_region_access_valid to iterate
> >>>>> over the memory region in the same way as the subsequent call to
> >>>>> memory_region_dispatch_write.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: 863f6f52b7 ("s390: implement pci instructions")
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c | 10 ++++++----
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c
> >>>>> index e230293..76b08a3 100644
> >>>>> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c
> >>>>> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c
> >>>>> @@ -821,10 +821,12 @@ int pcistb_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, uint8_t r1, uint8_t r3, uint64_t gaddr,
> >>>>> mr = s390_get_subregion(mr, offset, len);
> >>>>> offset -= mr->addr;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - if (!memory_region_access_valid(mr, offset, len, true,
> >>>>> - MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED)) {
> >>>>> - s390_program_interrupt(env, PGM_OPERAND, ra);
> >>>>> - return 0;
> >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < len; i += 8) {
> >>>>> + if (!memory_region_access_valid(mr, offset + i, 8, true,
> >>>>> + MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED)) {
> >>>>> + s390_program_interrupt(env, PGM_OPERAND, ra);
> >>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if (s390_cpu_virt_mem_read(cpu, gaddr, ar, buffer, len)) {
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> wouldn't it be made automatically by defining the io_region
> >>>> max_access_size when reading the bars in clp_service_call?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> But that's already what is happening, isn't it? The access check is
> >>> done for a size that is potentially too large, while the actual access
> >>> will happen in chunks of 8? I think that this patch is correct.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sorry I was too rapid and half wrong in my writing I was also not
> >> specific enough.
> >>
> >> In MemoryRegionOps we have a field valid with a callback accepts().
> >>
> >> I was wondering if doing the check in the accept() callback which is
> >> called by the memory_region_access_valid() function and then using
> >> max_access_size would not be cleaner.
> >>
> >> Note that it does not change a lot but only where the check is done.
> >
> > But where would we add those ops? My understanding is that pcistb acts
> > on whatever region the device provided, and that differs from device to
> > device?
> >
> >
>
> The ops already exist, I thought adding a dedicated callback for s390 on
> every regions used by vfio_pci instead of the default.
> But it does not add a lot, just looks cleaner to me.
But we end up here for every pci device, not just for vfio devices,
don't we?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-18 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-17 22:16 [PATCH v2 0/2] s390x/pci: some pcistb fixes Matthew Rosato
2020-12-17 22:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] s390x/pci: fix pcistb length Matthew Rosato
2020-12-18 9:22 ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-12-17 22:16 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] s390x/pci: Fix memory_region_access_valid call Matthew Rosato
2020-12-18 6:10 ` Thomas Huth
2020-12-18 9:37 ` Pierre Morel
2020-12-18 11:04 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-12-18 14:32 ` Pierre Morel
2020-12-18 15:32 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-12-18 16:40 ` Pierre Morel
2020-12-18 16:51 ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2020-12-18 17:05 ` Pierre Morel
2020-12-21 8:50 ` Pierre Morel
2020-12-21 10:21 ` Cornelia Huck
2020-12-21 12:22 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] s390x/pci: some pcistb fixes Cornelia Huck
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=20201218175119.5f43b378.cohuck@redhat.com \
--to=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pmorel@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-s390x@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
--cc=thuth@redhat.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).