From: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Peter Xu" <peterx@redhat.com>,
"Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
"Alex Williamson" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
"Eduardo Habkost" <eduardo@habkost.net>,
"Marcel Apfelbaum" <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>,
"Elena Ufimtseva" <elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com>,
"Jagannathan Raman" <jag.raman@oracle.com>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dave@treblig.org>,
"Stefan Zabka" <git@zabka.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] physmem: disallow direct access to RAM DEVICE in address_space_write_rom()
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 11:07:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5267cc69-18ec-48b1-be60-90c972922806@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250120111503.244994-2-david@redhat.com>
Hi David,
On 20/1/25 12:14, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> As documented in commit 4a2e242bbb306 ("memory: Don't use memcpy for
> ram_device regions"), we disallow direct access to RAM DEVICE regions.
>
> Let's factor out the "supports direct access" check from
> memory_access_is_direct() so we can reuse it, and make it a bit easier to
> read.
>
> This change implies that address_space_write_rom() and
> cpu_memory_rw_debug() won't be able to write to RAM DEVICE regions. It
> will also affect cpu_flush_icache_range(), but it's only used by
> hw/core/loader.c after writing to ROM, so it is expected to not apply
> here with RAM DEVICE.
>
> This fixes direct access to these regions where we don't want direct
> access. We'll extend cpu_memory_rw_debug() next to also be able to write to
> these (and IO) regions.
>
> This is a preparation for further changes.
>
> Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/exec/memory.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> system/physmem.c | 3 +--
> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
> index 3ee1901b52..bd0ddb9cdf 100644
> --- a/include/exec/memory.h
> +++ b/include/exec/memory.h
> @@ -2985,15 +2985,33 @@ MemTxResult address_space_write_cached_slow(MemoryRegionCache *cache,
> int memory_access_size(MemoryRegion *mr, unsigned l, hwaddr addr);
> bool prepare_mmio_access(MemoryRegion *mr);
>
> +static inline bool memory_region_supports_direct_access(MemoryRegion *mr)
> +{
> + /* ROM DEVICE regions only allow direct access if in ROMD mode. */
> + if (memory_region_is_romd(mr)) {
> + return true;
> + }
> + if (!memory_region_is_ram(mr)) {
> + return false;
> + }
> + /*
> + * RAM DEVICE regions can be accessed directly using memcpy, but it might
> + * be MMIO and access using mempy can be wrong (e.g., using instructions not
> + * intended for MMIO access). So we treat this as IO.
> + */
> + return !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr);
> +
> +}
> +
> static inline bool memory_access_is_direct(MemoryRegion *mr, bool is_write)
> {
> - if (is_write) {
> - return memory_region_is_ram(mr) && !mr->readonly &&
> - !mr->rom_device && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr);
> - } else {
> - return (memory_region_is_ram(mr) && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr)) ||
This patch is doing multiple things at once, and I'm having hard time
reviewing it.
> - memory_region_is_romd(mr);
> + if (!memory_region_supports_direct_access(mr)) {
> + return false;
> + }
> + if (!is_write) {
> + return true;
> }
> + return !mr->readonly && !mr->rom_device;
> }
Trying to split.
1/ Extract starting with ram[_device]:
-- >8 --
diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
index 3ee1901b52c..5834a208618 100644
--- a/include/exec/memory.h
+++ b/include/exec/memory.h
@@ -2987,2 +2987,15 @@ bool prepare_mmio_access(MemoryRegion *mr);
+static inline bool memory_region_supports_direct_access(MemoryRegion *mr)
+{
+ if (!memory_region_is_ram(mr)) {
+ return false;
+ }
+ /*
+ * RAM DEVICE regions can be accessed directly using memcpy, but it
might
+ * be MMIO and access using mempy can be wrong (e.g., using
instructions not
+ * intended for MMIO access). So we treat this as IO.
+ */
+ return !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr);
+}
+
static inline bool memory_access_is_direct(MemoryRegion *mr, bool
is_write)
@@ -2990,6 +3003,6 @@ static inline bool
memory_access_is_direct(MemoryRegion *mr, bool is_write)
if (is_write) {
- return memory_region_is_ram(mr) && !mr->readonly &&
- !mr->rom_device && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr);
+ return !mr->readonly && !mr->rom_device &&
+ !memory_region_supports_direct_access(mr);
} else {
- return (memory_region_is_ram(mr) &&
!memory_region_is_ram_device(mr)) ||
+ return memory_region_supports_direct_access(mr) ||
memory_region_is_romd(mr);
---
2/ Call memory_region_supports_direct_access() once [dubious]
-- >8 --
diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
index 5834a208618..4c5c84059b7 100644
--- a/include/exec/memory.h
+++ b/include/exec/memory.h
@@ -3002,8 +3002,10 @@ static inline bool
memory_access_is_direct(MemoryRegion *mr, bool is_write)
{
+ if (!memory_region_supports_direct_access(mr)) {
+ return false;
+ }
+
if (is_write) {
- return !mr->readonly && !mr->rom_device &&
- !memory_region_supports_direct_access(mr);
+ return !mr->readonly && !mr->rom_device;
} else {
- return memory_region_supports_direct_access(mr) ||
- memory_region_is_romd(mr);
+ return memory_region_is_romd(mr);
}
---
3/ Invert if ladders:
-- >8 --
diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
index 4c5c84059b7..e89cd2f10f0 100644
--- a/include/exec/memory.h
+++ b/include/exec/memory.h
@@ -3006,7 +3006,7 @@ static inline bool
memory_access_is_direct(MemoryRegion *mr, bool is_write)
- if (is_write) {
- return !mr->readonly && !mr->rom_device;
- } else {
+ if (!is_write) {
return memory_region_is_romd(mr);
}
+
+ return !mr->readonly && !mr->rom_device;
}
---
4/ Check memory_region_is_romd() [dubious]
-- >8 --
diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
index e89cd2f10f0..2cdbf4b43d7 100644
--- a/include/exec/memory.h
+++ b/include/exec/memory.h
@@ -2989,2 +2989,6 @@ static inline bool
memory_region_supports_direct_access(MemoryRegion *mr)
{
+ /* ROM DEVICE regions only allow direct access if in ROMD mode. */
+ if (memory_region_is_romd(mr)) {
+ return true;
+ }
if (!memory_region_is_ram(mr)) {
@@ -3007,3 +3011,3 @@ static inline bool
memory_access_is_direct(MemoryRegion *mr, bool is_write)
if (!is_write) {
- return memory_region_is_romd(mr);
+ return true;
}
---
Hmm maybe this isn't a change that can be easily split in logical steps?
next parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-22 10:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20250120111503.244994-1-david@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <20250120111503.244994-2-david@redhat.com>
2025-01-22 10:07 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé [this message]
2025-01-22 10:10 ` [PATCH v1 1/4] physmem: disallow direct access to RAM DEVICE in address_space_write_rom() David Hildenbrand
2025-01-22 10:13 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-01-22 10:17 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-01-22 10:18 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-01-22 11:02 ` David Hildenbrand
[not found] ` <20250120111503.244994-4-david@redhat.com>
2025-01-22 10:08 ` [PATCH v1 3/4] hmp: use cpu_get_phys_page_debug() in hmp_gva2gpa() Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
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=5267cc69-18ec-48b1-be60-90c972922806@linaro.org \
--to=philmd@linaro.org \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@treblig.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=eduardo@habkost.net \
--cc=elena.ufimtseva@oracle.com \
--cc=git@zabka.it \
--cc=jag.raman@oracle.com \
--cc=marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/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).