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=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 A7345C433DF for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:44:46 +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 7299421527 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="XlyI3W/K" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7299421527 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]:49830 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlbB7-0003QG-OW for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:44:45 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45692) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlbA7-0002BZ-Tq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:43:43 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120]:56297 helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jlbA5-0005Pb-Rq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:43:43 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1592412220; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Gdc8Jjge+uq5oI4ioVF7aL1fsQ5nH8HKrG+Y6K5DqCw=; b=XlyI3W/KZO0K/DsMU/voZdtiSsDxgPETzv/d67CcPBT4jZm7E7jqVh3xWufzO2EuiwoA53 UMNazUMZD4uP9oGrpSrqnggkBPjeQwdkAhXqvUdVdljCkXkpX4BsDP1w6wimnZnqfLPbX8 4uUzNEdYkd9Y4wwIN3rs4wHGG0XSwOQ= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-389-DCoRVVnOOxi3sdVErVx5zQ-1; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:43:36 -0400 X-MC-Unique: DCoRVVnOOxi3sdVErVx5zQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E29CC184D153; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:43:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-115-92.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.115.92]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07785C1D4; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:43:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: ovmf / PCI passthrough impaired due to very limiting PCI64 aperture From: Laszlo Ersek To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" References: <99779e9c-f05f-501b-b4be-ff719f140a88@canonical.com> <20200616165043.24y2cp53axk7uggy@sirius.home.kraxel.org> <20200616165746.GH2788@work-vm> <20200617134652.GE2776@work-vm> <37e7bbbe-6792-fdaa-0046-fb8bc5b64546@redhat.com> Message-ID: <74a52916-af58-6dee-f0e0-deb2954ddd90@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 18:43:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <37e7bbbe-6792-fdaa-0046-fb8bc5b64546@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=207.211.31.120; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/17 01:42:04 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -30 X-Spam_score: -3.1 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN 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: Pedro Principeza , ehabkost@redhat.com, Dann Frazier , Guilherme Piccoli , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Christian Ehrhardt , Gerd Hoffmann , fw@gpiccoli.net Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 06/17/20 18:14, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 06/17/20 15:46, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >> * Laszlo Ersek (lersek@redhat.com) wrote: >>> On 06/16/20 19:14, Guilherme Piccoli wrote: >>>> Thanks Gerd, Dave and Eduardo for the prompt responses! >>>> >>>> So, I understand that when we use "-host-physical-bits", we are >>>> passing the *real* number for the guest, correct? So, in this case we >>>> can trust that the guest physbits matches the true host physbits. >>>> >>>> What if then we have OVMF relying in the physbits *iff* >>>> "-host-phys-bits" is used (which is the default in RH and a possible >>>> machine configuration on libvirt XML in Ubuntu), and we have OVMF >>>> fallbacks to 36-bit otherwise? >>> >>> I've now read the commit message on QEMU commit 258fe08bd341d, and the >>> complexity is simply stunning. >>> >>> Right now, OVMF calculates the guest physical address space size from >>> various range sizes (such as hotplug memory area end, default or >>> user-configured PCI64 MMIO aperture), and derives the minimum suitable >>> guest-phys address width from that address space size. This width is >>> then exposed to the rest of the firmware with the CPU HOB (hand-off >>> block), which in turn controls how the GCD (global coherency domain) >>> memory space map is sized. Etc. >>> >>> If QEMU can provide a *reliable* GPA width, in some info channel (CPUID >>> or even fw_cfg), then the above calculation could be reversed in OVMF. >>> We could take the width as a given (-> produce the CPU HOB directly), >>> plus calculate the *remaining* address space between the GPA space size >>> given by the width, and the end of the memory hotplug area end. If the >>> "remaining size" were negative, then obviously QEMU would have been >>> misconfigured, so we'd halt the boot. Otherwise, the remaining area >>> could be used as PCI64 MMIO aperture (PEI memory footprint of DXE page >>> tables be darned). >>> >>>> Now, regarding the problem "to trust or not" in the guests' physbits, >>>> I think it's an orthogonal discussion to some extent. It'd be nice to >>>> have that check, and as Eduardo said, prevent migration in such cases. >>>> But it's not really preventing OVMF big PCI64 aperture if we only >>>> increase the aperture _when "-host-physical-bits" is used_. >>> >>> I don't know what exactly those flags do, but I doubt they are clearly >>> visible to OVMF in any particular way. >> >> The firmware should trust whatever it reads from the cpuid and thus gets >> told from qemu; if qemu is doing the wrong thing there then that's our >> problem and we need to fix it in qemu. > > This sounds good in practice, but -- as Gerd too has stated, to my > understanding -- it has potential to break existing usage. > > Consider assigning a single device with a 32G BAR -- right now that's > supposed to work, without the X-PciMmio64Mb OVMF knob, on even the "most > basic" hardware (36-bit host phys address width, and EPT supported). If > OVMF suddenly starts trusting the CPUID from QEMU, and that results in a > GPA width of 40 bits (i.e. new OVMF is run on old QEMU), then the big > BAR (and other stuff too) could be allocated from GPA space that EPT is > actually able to deal with. --> regression for the user. s/able/unable/, sigh. :/ > > Sometimes I can tell users "hey given that you're building OVMF from > source, or taking it from a 3rd party origin anyway, can you just run > upstream QEMU too", but most of the time they just want everything to > continue working on a 3 year old Ubuntu LTS release or whatever. :/ > > And again, this is *without* "X-PciMmio64Mb". > > Laszlo >