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=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 2E375C433E0 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 09:45:20 +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 809C064EF0 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 09:45:19 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 809C064EF0 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]:53532 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lHO4E-0001gK-D6 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 04:45:18 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56072) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lHO33-0000w7-Td for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 04:44:05 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:23106) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lHO31-0008Em-HV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 04:44:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1614764642; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Eq4g+R5KwGDn8jG4TdZ7x6oFSn4oCjVCZTeRi8cnSF0=; b=guNSrgs1Mt/0+TMXPNzGG+XTdExVnpsHyRe9jatFqp992WjDy5C7OVfYp2QS/TrTUUypZP OK7oeXFL2h9/6jUhpj3in6RyLrb2QKW56kUyohSeI7Tyaugyzc5sGTyAVvKkK2MkbKpT1f O5g0jrDB1CZqZwmzOGCyNq40FewAv9k= Received: from mail-ed1-f69.google.com (mail-ed1-f69.google.com [209.85.208.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-471-EqabWK6PMtKLGQTIRmLZAQ-1; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 04:44:01 -0500 X-MC-Unique: EqabWK6PMtKLGQTIRmLZAQ-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f69.google.com with SMTP id v27so4872945edx.1 for ; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 01:44:01 -0800 (PST) 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; bh=Eq4g+R5KwGDn8jG4TdZ7x6oFSn4oCjVCZTeRi8cnSF0=; b=M9sLPnnDjGxJlZL/0Vy4IQzzAazGc0CNtQCr2EQ43xzK2+v2QLYyobItEZ1WZ270HO 6w/8cFDAYB1c1FIPu9vrKAdUGnHzeMhZ7bDfljHKxOftihcxz3+3lrFU9c/OZA8Pe/Yh EpE5bz9zwKr5mav8QzyuzfoT5A8DBivolPn4LXJQxRb8E5eqo6AbvbWia64TmI9mm7DG g9/ARlUxCSwxvmqgVRLax6lNhwiG3vJgFf47gguUWoYy0O8mL673m+sM16SSXmFuM73l tbKic2AkyflQJQpcHWWoGLDnzDmLdaronGVQOjrI1zfrgJIoCgCldeZy/tFuOy9P45iD 4glw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532gtLswVRhse7v7Hb5DT7VcmmJNkm/bbDRkB7jkw1N2k+ozVU7n jRjjbucMLRm+aiQLAK59X9dLXmFtJZ5R45Cr5G10pLX8bCx8grFLLHoWB7Tvtk3OqtsQTi7XvQA d5bW84oPqaJBoeJ8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4442:: with SMTP id i2mr25366762ejp.41.1614764637841; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 01:43:57 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxOfZVqgtLMg5VWCKkEpmaaO1w5BP5mdQpymhXYrh2/AAHm6MVSwlyR33gya4XSIgLbqLN0Eg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4442:: with SMTP id i2mr25366732ejp.41.1614764637570; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 01:43:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from redhat.com (bzq-79-180-2-31.red.bezeqint.net. [79.180.2.31]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k26sm5711957ejk.29.2021.03.03.01.43.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 03 Mar 2021 01:43:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 04:43:53 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: David Hildenbrand Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] acpi: increase maximum size for "etc/table-loader" blob Message-ID: <20210303044336-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20210301104833.45580-1-david@redhat.com> <20210302172323.6cac394a@MiWiFi-RA69-srv> <09fbdaa9-2882-2056-a5a2-2ca0da8c12cf@redhat.com> <7d8281a8-0479-ac81-c602-ed87c71ce3e2@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7d8281a8-0479-ac81-c602-ed87c71ce3e2@redhat.com> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=mst@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=mst@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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: Peter Maydell , Richard Henderson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alistair Francis , Shannon Zhao , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini , Igor Mammedov , Laszlo Ersek Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 07:43:40PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > The resizeable memory region that is created for the cmd blob has a maximum > > > > size of ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE - 4k. This used to be sufficient, however, > > > > The expression "ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE - 4k" makes no sense to me. > > ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE is #defined in "hw/i386/acpi-build.c" as 0x1000, > > so the difference (ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE - 4k) is zero. > > > > (1) Did you mean "ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE -- 4k"? IOW, did you mean to > > quote the value of the macro? > > > > If you mean an em dash, then please use an em dash, not a hyphen (or > > please use parens). > > Yes, or rather use ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE (4k). > > > > > > > > > as we try fitting in additional data (e.g., vmgenid, nvdimm, intel-iommu), > > > > we require more than 4k and can crash QEMU when trying to resize the > > > > resizeable memory region beyond its maximum size: > > > > $ build/qemu-system-x86_64 --enable-kvm \ > > > > -machine q35,nvdimm=on \ > > > > -smp 1 \ > > > > -cpu host \ > > > > -m size=2G,slots=8,maxmem=4G \ > > > > -object memory-backend-file,id=mem0,mem-path=/tmp/nvdimm,size=256M \ > > > > -device nvdimm,label-size=131072,memdev=mem0,id=nvdimm0,slot=1 \ > > > > -nodefaults \ > > > > -device vmgenid \ > > > > -device intel-iommu > > > > > > > > Results in: > > > > Unexpected error in qemu_ram_resize() at ../softmmu/physmem.c:1850: > > > > qemu-system-x86_64: Size too large: /rom@etc/table-loader: > > > > 0x2000 > 0x1000: Invalid argument > > > > > > > > We try growing the resizeable memory region (resizeable RAMBlock) beyond > > > > its maximum size. Let's increase the maximum size from 4k to 64k, which > > > > should be good enough for the near future. > > > > The existent code calls acpi_align_size(), for resizing the ACPI blobs > > (the GArray objects). > > > > (Unfortunately, the acpi_align_size() function is duplicated between > > "hw/i386/acpi-build.c" and "hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c", which seems > > unjustified -- but anyway, I digress.) > > > > This seems to come from commit 868270f23d8d ("acpi-build: tweak acpi > > migration limits", 2014-07-29) and commit 451b157041d2 ("acpi: Align the > > size to 128k", 2020-12-08). > > > > (2) Why is the logic added in those commits insufficient? > > We are dealing with different blobs here (tables_blob vs. cmd_blob). > > > > > What is the exact call tree that triggers the above error? > > [...] > > acpi_build_update()->acpi_build_update()->memory_region_ram_resize()->qemu_ram_resize() > > A longer calltrace can be found in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927159. > > > > > +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-microvm.c > > > > @@ -255,7 +255,8 @@ void acpi_setup_microvm(MicrovmMachineState *mms) > > > > ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_MAX_SIZE); > > > > acpi_add_rom_blob(acpi_build_no_update, NULL, > > > > tables.linker->cmd_blob, > > > > - "etc/table-loader", 0); > > > > + ACPI_BUILD_LOADER_FILE, > > > > + ACPI_BUILD_LOADER_MAX_SIZE); > > > > acpi_add_rom_blob(acpi_build_no_update, NULL, > > > > tables.rsdp, > > > > ACPI_BUILD_RSDP_FILE, 0); > > > > (3) Why are we using a different "tool" here, from the previous > > approach? We're no longer setting the GArray sizes; instead, we make the > > "rom->romsize" fields diverge from -- put differently, grow beyond -- > > "rom->datasize". Why is that useful? What are the consequences? > > See ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_MAX_SIZE handling just in the acpi_add_rom_blob() above. > > > > > Where is it ensured that data between "rom->datasize" and "rom->romsize" > > reads as zeroes? > We only expose the current memory_region_size() to our guest, which is > always multiples of 4k pages. > > rom->datasize and rom->romsize will be multiple of 4k AFAIKs. > > acpi_align_size()-> g_array_set_size() will take care of zeroing out > any unused parts within a single 4k page. > > So all unused, guest-visible part should always be 0 I think. > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h b/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h > > > > index 380d3e3924..93cdfd4006 100644 > > > > --- a/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h > > > > +++ b/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h > > > > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > > > > > > > > /* Reserve RAM space for tables: add another order of magnitude. */ > > > > #define ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_MAX_SIZE 0x200000 > > > > +#define ACPI_BUILD_LOADER_MAX_SIZE 0x40000 > > > > > > > > #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6 "BOCHS " > > > > #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME8 "BXPC " > > > > > > > The commit message says "Let's increase the maximum size from 4k to > > 64k", and I have two problems with that: > > > > (4a) I have no idea where the current "4k" size comes from. (In case the > > 4k refers to ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE, then why are we not changing that > > macro?) > > Changing ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE would affect the legacy_table_size in > acpi_build() - so that can't be right. > > What would also work is something like (to be improved) > > diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > index 45ad2f9533..49cfedddc8 100644 > --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ > #define ACPI_BUILD_LEGACY_CPU_AML_SIZE 97 > #define ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE 0x1000 > +#define ACPI_BUILD_LOADER_ALIGN_SIZE 0x2000 > + > #define ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_SIZE 0x20000 > /* #define DEBUG_ACPI_BUILD */ > @@ -2613,10 +2615,10 @@ void acpi_build(AcpiBuildTables *tables, MachineState *machine) > error_printf("Try removing CPUs, NUMA nodes, memory slots" > " or PCI bridges."); > } > - acpi_align_size(tables_blob, ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_SIZE); > + acpi_align_size(tables_blob, ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE); > } > - acpi_align_size(tables->linker->cmd_blob, ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE); > + acpi_align_size(tables->linker->cmd_blob, ACPI_BUILD_LOADER_ALIGN_SIZE); > > > At least for hw/i386/acpi-build.c. > > We will end up creating the resizeable memory region/RAMBlock always with > a size=maximum_size=8k. (could also go for 64k here) > > The only downside is that we might expose a bigger area to the > guest than necessary (e.g., 8k instead of 4k) and will e.g., migrate > 8k instead of 4k (not that we care). > > > On incoming migration from older QEMU versions, we should be able to just > shrink back from 8k to 4k - so migration from older QEMY versions should > continue working just fine. what about migration to old qemu? > > > > (4b) The new macro ACPI_BUILD_LOADER_MAX_SIZE does not express 64KB, > > contrary to the commit message: it expresses 256KB. > > Indeed, thanks for noticing that - not that it wouldn't really > affect your testing in case the maximum size is bigger than necessary ;) > > > > > ... The code is really difficult to understand; consider the following > > macros: > > Yes, it is. > > Thanks! > > -- > Thanks, > > David / dhildenb