[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.12 2/8] amd/ntp: remove assert that prevents creating 2M MMIO entries
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 05:44:14AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 05.02.19 at 11:40, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 12:45:56AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 04.02.19 at 18:18, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 09:56:22AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >> >>> On 30.01.19 at 11:36, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > The assert was originally added to make sure that higher order > >> >> > regions (> PAGE_ORDER_4K) could not be used to bypass the > >> >> > mmio_ro_ranges check performed by p2m_type_to_flags. > >> >> > > >> >> > This however is already checked in set_mmio_p2m_entry, which makes > >> >> > sure that higher order mappings don't overlap with mmio_ro_ranges, > >> >> > thus allowing the creation of high order MMIO mappings safely. > >> >> > >> >> Well, the assertions were added to make sure no other code > >> >> path appears that violates this requirement. Arguably e.g. > >> >> set_identity_p2m_entry() could gain an order parameter and > >> >> then try to establish larger p2m_mmio_direct entries. > >> >> > >> >> Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the removal of the > >> >> assertions, but the description makes it sound as if they were > >> >> entirely redundant. Even better would be though if they > >> >> could be extended to keep triggering in "bad" cases. > >> > > >> > I could add something like: > >> > > >> > ASSERT(!rangeset_overlaps_range(mmio_ro_ranges, mfn_x(mfn), > >> > mfn_x(mfn) + PFN_DOWN(MB(2)))); > >> > > >> > I think this should be safe and would trigger in case of misuse. > >> > >> Looks okay, if slightly extended (or made conditional) to exclude > >> the addition of MB(2) to MFN_INVALID to wrap and potentially > >> hit a r/o range in the low 1Mb. > > > > Ack, so it would be: > > > > ASSERT(mfn_eq(mfn, INVALID_MFN) || > > !rangeset_overlaps_range(mmio_ro_ranges, mfn_x(mfn), > > mfn_x(mfn) + PFN_DOWN(MB(2)))); > > But that's still dropping the other aspect of the original ASSERT(): > > >> >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c > >> >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c > >> >> > @@ -668,7 +668,6 @@ p2m_pt_set_entry(struct p2m_domain *p2m, gfn_t > >> >> > gfn_, mfn_t mfn, > >> >> > } > >> >> > > >> >> > ASSERT(p2m_flags_to_type(flags) != p2m_ioreq_server); > >> >> > - ASSERT(!mfn_valid(mfn) || p2mt != p2m_mmio_direct); > > It also made sure that "valid" MFNs can't be used for mappings with > p2m_mmio_direct type. Except that I realize now that this is wrong in > certain cases, because MMIO pages may actually have "valid" MFNs. > mfn_valid(), after all, only tells us whether there's a struct page_info > for the MFN. I wonder if it's really this brokenness that you hit, > rather than what is explained in the description. > > When the assertion was introduced, MMIO wasn't handled by the > code correctly anyway (!mfn_valid() MFNs would not have got any > mappings at all in the 2M and 1G paths), whereas now we have > p2m_allows_invalid_mfn() there. So the situation has become worse > with other nearby changes. As a result I think we want to correct > the assertion here alongside the addition of what you suggest > above. What about > > if ( p2mt != p2m_mmio_direct ) > ASSERT(mfn_valid(mfn) || (mfn_eq(mfn, INVALID_MFN) && > p2m_allows_invalid_mfn(p2mt))); > else > ASSERT(!mfn_eq(mfn, INVALID_MFN) && > !rangeset_overlaps_range(mmio_ro_ranges, mfn_x(mfn), > mfn_x(mfn) + PFN_DOWN(MB(2)))); I would write it as 'if ( p2mt == p2m_mmio_direct ) ... else ...' but apart from that LGTM. If you are fine with this adjustment I will change it in preparation for v2. Thanks, Roger. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |