xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
To: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
Cc: paolo.valente@unimore.it, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>,
	stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>,
	xen-devel@lists.xen.org, julien.grall@citrix.com,
	etrudeau@broadcom.com,
	Arianna Avanzini <avanzini.arianna@gmail.com>,
	viktor.kleinik@globallogic.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] arch, arm32: add the XEN_DOMCTL_memory_mapping hypercall
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 23:20:58 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53149DDA.2030706@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1393847789.4058.62.camel@Solace>



On 03/03/14 19:56, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On dom, 2014-03-02 at 17:56 +0800, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 02/03/14 08:49, Arianna Avanzini wrote:
>
>>> +
>>> +        ret = -EPERM;
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * NOTE: dom0 seems to have empty iomem_caps but to be however able to
>>> +	 *       access I/O memory ranges. The following check takes for granted
>>> +	 *       that any iomem range can be mapped to a domU if the current
>>> +	 *       domain is dom0.
>>> +	 */
>>> +        if ( current->domain->domain_id != 0 &&
>>> +             !iomem_access_permitted(current->domain, mfn, mfn + nr_mfns - 1) )
>>> +            return ret;
>>
>> This check can be removed by adding in construct_dom0
>> (arch/arm/domain_build.c) something like that:
>>     /* DOM0 is permitted full I/O capabilities */
>>     rc = iomem_permit_access(d, 0UL, ~OUL);
>>
> Right. FTR, xen/arch/x86/domain_build.c, has this (also in
> construct_dom0):
>
>      /* DOM0 is permitted full I/O capabilities. */
>      rc |= ioports_permit_access(dom0, 0, 0xFFFF);
>      rc |= iomem_permit_access(dom0, 0UL, ~0UL);
>      rc |= irqs_permit_access(dom0, 1, nr_irqs_gsi - 1);
>
> Do you want a patch to that/similar effect?

Yes. Maybe a bit more smarter than permitting full I/0 caps for dom0.

>> I'm wondering if we can even restrict dom0 I/0 access by only permit
>> access on devices passthrough to it. Because dom0 should not be allowed
>> to map I/O ranges which belong to device used by Xen e.g : GIC, RAM,...
>>
> So, this is probably me messing up with the terminology, but what
> 'devices passthrough to it [dom0]' would mean, for example in cases
> where we don't have an IOMMU (like cubie* boards), and hence where
> proper passtrhogh will never be, I think, supported? Or do we plan to
> have it working there too?

My term seems to be wrong for dom0 :).

On ARM, some device is used by Xen and therefore not exposed to dom0. By 
passthrough to dom0 I meant every device that are given to dom0, no 
matter if the platform has an IOMMU.

I think DOM0 should only be able to map theses devices to a guest. It 
seems stupid to allow dom0 mapping RAM or the UART used by Xen.

-- 
Julien Grall

  reply	other threads:[~2014-03-03 15:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-02  0:49 [RFC PATCH 0/3] Implement the XEN_DOMCTL_memory_mapping hypecall for arm32 Arianna Avanzini
2014-03-02  0:49 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] arch, arm32: add definition of paddr_bits Arianna Avanzini
2014-03-02  8:13   ` Julien Grall
2014-03-07  0:36     ` Arianna Avanzini
2014-03-02  0:49 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] arch, arm32: add the XEN_DOMCTL_memory_mapping hypercall Arianna Avanzini
2014-03-02  9:56   ` Julien Grall
2014-03-03 11:56     ` Dario Faggioli
2014-03-03 15:20       ` Julien Grall [this message]
2014-03-03 15:33         ` Dario Faggioli
2014-03-04  2:42           ` Julien Grall
2014-03-07  0:47             ` Arianna Avanzini
2014-03-03 16:25         ` Eric Trudeau
2014-03-03 16:35           ` Dario Faggioli
2014-03-03 19:04             ` Eric Trudeau
2014-03-05 13:59     ` Arianna Avanzini
2014-03-06  3:41       ` Julien Grall
2014-03-07  0:57         ` Arianna Avanzini
2014-03-03 18:06   ` Eric Trudeau
2014-03-04  3:08     ` Julien Grall
2014-03-07  0:56       ` Arianna Avanzini
2014-03-07  3:41         ` Julien Grall
2014-03-07 19:49           ` Arianna Avanzini
2014-03-02  0:49 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] tools, libxl: handle the iomem parameter with the memory_mapping hcall Arianna Avanzini
2014-03-02 10:33   ` Julien Grall
2014-03-02 11:27     ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-03 10:32       ` Dario Faggioli
2014-03-03 15:13         ` Julien Grall
2014-03-07  0:45           ` Arianna Avanzini
2014-03-07  4:03             ` Julien Grall
2014-03-07 19:54               ` Arianna Avanzini
2014-03-03 11:19     ` Dario Faggioli
2014-03-07  4:05       ` Julien Grall
2014-03-02  8:13 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] Implement the XEN_DOMCTL_memory_mapping hypecall for arm32 Julien Grall

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=53149DDA.2030706@linaro.org \
    --to=julien.grall@linaro.org \
    --cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
    --cc=avanzini.arianna@gmail.com \
    --cc=dario.faggioli@citrix.com \
    --cc=etrudeau@broadcom.com \
    --cc=julien.grall@citrix.com \
    --cc=paolo.valente@unimore.it \
    --cc=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=tim@xen.org \
    --cc=viktor.kleinik@globallogic.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.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).