Re: [PATCH V3 12/29] x86/vvtd: Add MMIO handler for VVTD

[Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:34:54PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:01:53PM -0400, Lan Tianyu wrote:
>> From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
>> 
>> This patch adds VVTD MMIO handler to deal with MMIO access.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/vvtd.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 91 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/vvtd.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/vvtd.c
>> index c851ec7..a3002c3 100644
>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/vvtd.c
>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/vvtd.c
>> @@ -47,6 +47,29 @@ struct vvtd {
>>      struct page_info *regs_page;
>>  };
>>  
>> +/* Setting viommu_verbose enables debugging messages of vIOMMU */
>> +bool __read_mostly viommu_verbose;
>> +boolean_runtime_param("viommu_verbose", viommu_verbose);
>> +
>> +#ifndef NDEBUG
>> +#define vvtd_info(fmt...) do {                    \
>> +    if ( viommu_verbose )                         \
>> +        gprintk(XENLOG_G_INFO, ## fmt);           \
>
>If you use gprintk you should use XENLOG_INFO, the '_G_' variants are
>only used with plain printk.
>
>> +} while(0)
>> +#define vvtd_debug(fmt...) do {                   \
>> +    if ( viommu_verbose && printk_ratelimit() )   \
>
>Not sure why you need printk_ratelimit, XENLOG_G_DEBUG is already
>rate-limited.
>
>> +        printk(XENLOG_G_DEBUG fmt);               \
>
>Any reason why vvtd_info uses gprintk and here you use printk?
>
>> +} while(0)
>> +#else
>> +#define vvtd_info(fmt...) do {} while(0)
>> +#define vvtd_debug(fmt...) do {} while(0)
>
>No need for 'fmt...' just '...' will suffice since you are discarding
>the parameters anyway.
>
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +struct vvtd *domain_vvtd(struct domain *d)
>> +{
>> +    return (d->viommu) ? d->viommu->priv : NULL;
>
>Unneeded parentheses around d->viommu.
>
>Also, it seems wring to call domain_vvtd with !d->viommu. So I think
>this helper should just be removed, and d->viommu->priv fetched
>directly.
>
>> +}
>> +
>>  static inline void vvtd_set_reg(struct vvtd *vtd, uint32_t reg, uint32_t value)
>>  {
>>      vtd->regs->data32[reg/sizeof(uint32_t)] = value;
>> @@ -68,6 +91,73 @@ static inline uint64_t vvtd_get_reg_quad(struct vvtd *vtd, uint32_t reg)
>>      return vtd->regs->data64[reg/sizeof(uint64_t)];
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int vvtd_in_range(struct vcpu *v, unsigned long addr)
>> +{
>> +    struct vvtd *vvtd = domain_vvtd(v->domain);
>> +
>> +    if ( vvtd )
>> +        return (addr >= vvtd->base_addr) &&
>> +               (addr < vvtd->base_addr + PAGE_SIZE);
>
>So the register set covers a PAGE_SIZE, but hvm_hw_vvtd_regs only
>covers from 0 to 1024B, it seems like there's something wrong here...
>
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int vvtd_read(struct vcpu *v, unsigned long addr,
>> +                     unsigned int len, unsigned long *pval)
>> +{
>> +    struct vvtd *vvtd = domain_vvtd(v->domain);
>> +    unsigned int offset = addr - vvtd->base_addr;
>> +
>> +    vvtd_info("Read offset %x len %d\n", offset, len);
>> +
>> +    if ( (len != 4 && len != 8) || (offset & (len - 1)) )
>
>What value does hardware return when performing unaligned reads or
>reads with wrong size?

According to VT-d spec section 10.2, "Software must access 64-bit and
128-bit registers as either aligned quadwords or aligned doublewords".
I am afraid there is no specific hardware action for unaligned access
information. We can treat it as undefined? Then do nothing.
But I did see windows driver has such accesses. We need to add a
workaround for windows later.

>
>Here you return with pval not set, which is dangerous.

Indeed. But I need check whether the pval is initialized by the caller.
If that, it is safe.

>
>> +        return X86EMUL_OKAY;
>> +
>> +    if ( len == 4 )
>> +        *pval = vvtd_get_reg(vvtd, offset);
>> +    else
>> +        *pval = vvtd_get_reg_quad(vvtd, offset);
>
>...yet here you don't check for offset < 1024.
>
>> +
>> +    return X86EMUL_OKAY;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int vvtd_write(struct vcpu *v, unsigned long addr,
>> +                      unsigned int len, unsigned long val)
>> +{
>> +    struct vvtd *vvtd = domain_vvtd(v->domain);
>> +    unsigned int offset = addr - vvtd->base_addr;
>> +
>> +    vvtd_info("Write offset %x len %d val %lx\n", offset, len, val);
>> +
>> +    if ( (len != 4 && len != 8) || (offset & (len - 1)) )
>> +        return X86EMUL_OKAY;
>> +
>> +    if ( len == 4 )
>> +    {
>> +        switch ( offset )
>> +        {
>> +        case DMAR_IEDATA_REG:
>> +        case DMAR_IEADDR_REG:
>> +        case DMAR_IEUADDR_REG:
>> +        case DMAR_FEDATA_REG:
>> +        case DMAR_FEADDR_REG:
>> +        case DMAR_FEUADDR_REG:
>> +            vvtd_set_reg(vvtd, offset, val);
>
>Hm, so you are using a full page when you only care for 6 4B
>registers? Seem like quite of a waste of memory.

Registers are added here when according features are introduced.

Thanks
Chao

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel