From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: "Thomas Huth" <thuth@redhat.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
"Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>,
"Stefan Weil" <sw@weilnetz.de>,
"Yonggang Luo" <luoyonggang@gmail.com>,
"Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
"Jason Wang" <jasowang@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] hw/i386/intel_iommu: Fix VTD_IR_TableEntry for ms_struct layout
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:53:46 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230731165306-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZMgZBNEutnsDxk8A@x1n>
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 04:26:44PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:20:40AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 28/07/2023 16.37, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 04:27:46PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > > We might want to compile QEMU with Clang on Windows - but it
> > > > does not support the __attribute__((gcc_struct)) yet. So we
> > > > have to make sure that the structs will stay the same when
> > > > the compiler uses the "ms_struct" layout. The VTD_IR_TableEntry
> > > > struct is affected - rewrite it a little bit so that it works
> > > > fine with both struct layouts.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/hw/i386/intel_iommu.h | 14 ++++++++------
> > > > hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 2 +-
> > > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/hw/i386/intel_iommu.h b/include/hw/i386/intel_iommu.h
> > > > index 89dcbc5e1e..08bf220393 100644
> > > > --- a/include/hw/i386/intel_iommu.h
> > > > +++ b/include/hw/i386/intel_iommu.h
> > > > @@ -204,18 +204,20 @@ union VTD_IR_TableEntry {
> > > > #endif
> > > > uint32_t dest_id; /* Destination ID */
> > > > uint16_t source_id; /* Source-ID */
> > > > + uint16_t __reserved_2; /* Reserved 2 */
> > > > #if HOST_BIG_ENDIAN
> > > > - uint64_t __reserved_2:44; /* Reserved 2 */
> > > > - uint64_t sid_vtype:2; /* Source-ID Validation Type */
> > > > - uint64_t sid_q:2; /* Source-ID Qualifier */
> > > > + uint32_t __reserved_3:28; /* Reserved 3 */
> > > > + uint32_t sid_vtype:2; /* Source-ID Validation Type */
> > > > + uint32_t sid_q:2; /* Source-ID Qualifier */
> > > > #else
> > > > - uint64_t sid_q:2; /* Source-ID Qualifier */
> > > > - uint64_t sid_vtype:2; /* Source-ID Validation Type */
> > > > - uint64_t __reserved_2:44; /* Reserved 2 */
> > > > + uint32_t sid_q:2; /* Source-ID Qualifier */
> > > > + uint32_t sid_vtype:2; /* Source-ID Validation Type */
> > > > + uint32_t __reserved_3:28; /* Reserved 3 */
> > >
> > > Hasn't this has changed the struct layout in the else clause
> > >
> > > Old layout:
> > >
> > > source_id : 16
> > > sid_q : 2
> > > sid_vtype : 2
> > > reserved_2 : 44
> > >
> > > New layout
> > >
> > > source_id : 16
> > > reserved_2 : 16
> > > sid_q : 2
> > > sid_vtype : 2
> > > reserved_3 : 28
> >
> > Drat, you're right, I missed the fact that the whole stuff is read and
> > written via the uint64_t data[2] part from the union in the code ... :-(
>
> Yes, that's actually part of the VT-d spec.
>
> >
> > > Was there something wrong with the change I suggested to
> > > just make source_id be a bitfield too:
> > >
> > > uint64_t source_id: 16; /* Source-ID */
> > >
> > > which could make ms_struct layout avoid padding to the following
> > > bitfields.
> >
> > That likely works, but I think we then need to add it then twice, one time
> > in the HOST_BIG_ENDIAN at the end, and one time in the #else part?
> >
> > Anyway, that whole code looks like it's completely wrong on big endian
> > machines. The struct is read via dma_memory_read() from guest memory, but
> > then the values are never byte-swapped, except for the error_report and
> > trace functions, e.g. entry->irte.present is used without calling
> > le64_to_cpu() first.
> > entry->irte.source_id is swapped with le32_to_cpu() which looks also wrong
> > since this is a 16 bit field.
> >
> > Sigh. This is another good example why we shouldn't use bitfields at all in
> > structures that exchange data. As Richard suggested in his reply, this
> > really should be rewritten, e.g. with the stuff from hw/registerfields.h.
>
> I can definitely review the iommu-side changes if someone would like to
> finally enable that for either clang or whatever purpose. Sorry if it
> never worked..
>
> But then if it's broken for 7 years since the start, it probably also means
> no one ever used it on big endian hosts, either, as a functionality.. so
> another approach is we can opt-out VT-d as a whole for big endian, if
> that's easier.
>
> Thanks,
Let's just fix it properly please. Bad code proliferates.
--
MST
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-31 20:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-28 14:27 [RFC PATCH 0/6] Use Clang for compiling in the 64-bit MSYS2 job Thomas Huth
2023-07-28 14:27 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] gitlab: remove duplication between msys jobs Thomas Huth
2023-07-28 14:27 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] ui/dbus: fix clang compilation issue Thomas Huth
2023-07-28 14:27 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] util/oslib-win32: Fix compiling with Clang from MSYS2 Thomas Huth
2023-07-31 14:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2023-07-28 14:27 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] hw/i386/intel_iommu: Fix VTD_IR_TableEntry for ms_struct layout Thomas Huth
2023-07-28 14:37 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-07-28 16:39 ` Richard Henderson
2023-07-31 8:20 ` Thomas Huth
2023-07-31 20:26 ` Peter Xu
2023-07-31 20:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2023-07-28 14:27 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] include/qemu/compiler: Fix problem with gcc_struct and Clang Thomas Huth
2023-07-28 15:13 ` Peter Maydell
2023-07-31 9:10 ` Thomas Huth
2023-07-31 9:32 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-07-31 12:04 ` Thomas Huth
2023-08-03 16:29 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-07-31 14:10 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2023-07-31 17:25 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-08-01 13:29 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2023-07-31 10:05 ` Peter Maydell
2023-07-31 12:05 ` Thomas Huth
2023-07-31 12:44 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-08-01 13:49 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-08-01 18:31 ` Thomas Huth
2023-07-31 12:57 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-07-31 14:07 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2023-07-28 14:27 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] gitlab-ci.d/windows: Use Clang for compiling in the 64-bit MSYS2 job Thomas Huth
2023-07-31 14:23 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2023-07-31 14:43 ` Thomas Huth
2023-08-01 13:30 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2023-08-01 13:35 ` [RFC PATCH 0/6] " Daniel P. Berrangé
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=20230731165306-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=luoyonggang@gmail.com \
--cc=marcandre.lureau@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=sw@weilnetz.de \
--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).