|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 2/5] arch, arm: add consistency checks to REMOVE p2m changes
On 03/15/2014 11:19 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hello Arianna,
>
> Thanks for the patch.
>
Thank you for the feedback.
> On 15/03/14 20:11, Arianna Avanzini wrote:
>> ---
>> xen/arch/arm/p2m.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/p2m.c b/xen/arch/arm/p2m.c
>> index d00c882..47bf154 100644
>> --- a/xen/arcah/arm/p2m.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/p2m.c
>> @@ -243,7 +243,8 @@ static int apply_p2m_changes(struct domain *d,
>> int rc;
>> struct p2m_domain *p2m = &d->arch.p2m;
>> lpae_t *first = NULL, *second = NULL, *third = NULL;
>> - paddr_t addr;
>> + p2m_type_t _t;
>> + paddr_t addr, _maddr = INVALID_PADDR;
>> unsigned long cur_first_page = ~0,
>> cur_first_offset = ~0,
>> cur_second_offset = ~0;
>> @@ -252,6 +253,20 @@ static int apply_p2m_changes(struct domain *d,
>> bool_t populate = (op == INSERT || op == ALLOCATE);
>> lpae_t pte;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * As of now, the lookup is needed only in in case
>> + * of REMOVE operation, as a consistency check on
>> + * the existence of a mapping between the machine
>> + * address and the start guest address given as
>> + * parameters.
>> + */
>> + if (op == REMOVE)
>> + /*
>> + * Be sure to lookup before grabbing the p2m_lock,
>> + * as the p2m_lookup() function holds it too.
>> + */
>> + _maddr = p2m_lookup(d, start_gpaddr, &_t);
>> +
>
> Did you try remove path? apply_p2m_changes is taking p2m->lock which is also
> taken by p2m_lookup. With this solution it will end up to a deadlock.
>
The lookup is performed before grabbing p2m->lock, as stated in the comment.
I'll certainly remove it as it is useless, thank you for the feedback and for
the many suggestions.
> Anyway, you don't need to use p2m_lookup because you already have all the data
> in pte (if pte.p2m.valid == 1):
> - pte.p2m.type = p2m type
> - pte.p2m.base = MFN
>
>> spin_lock(&p2m->lock);
>>
>> if ( d != current->domain )
>> @@ -367,9 +382,23 @@ static int apply_p2m_changes(struct domain *d,
>> maddr += PAGE_SIZE;
>> }
>> break;
>> - case RELINQUISH:
>> case REMOVE:
>> {
>> + /*
>> + * Ensure that, if we are trying to unmap I/O memory
>> + * ranges, the given gfn is p2m_mmio_direct.
>> + */
>
>> + if ( t == p2m_mmio_direct ? _t != p2m_mmio_direct : 0 ||
>> + paddr_to_pfn(_maddr) == INVALID_MFN ||
>
> Testing pte.p2m.valid instead of paddr_to(_maddr)... is right answer.
>
> Moreover, why do you need to check t? Every call to guest_physmap_remove_page
> is
> done with a valid mfn (I guess it can be enhanced by a BUG_ON(mfn !=
> INVALID_MFN) in this function).
>
I might be wrong, but it seems to me that apply_p2m_changes() is called with op
== REMOVE also from guest_physmap_remove_page(), and in that case t ==
p2m_invalid.
>
>> + maddr != _maddr )
>
> maddr is not incremented during where the page is removed. The next iteration
> will likely fail. You need to increment it in various place.
>
I actually was checking at each iteration the start maddr against the result of
the lookup performed before the loop, which is a mistake. Sorry, and thank you
again for the feedback.
>> + {
>> + count++;
>> + break;
>
> IHMO, skipping the page is totally wrong. You should return an error here.
>
> Regards,
>
--
/*
* Arianna Avanzini
* avanzini.arianna@xxxxxxxxx
* 73628@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*/
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |