[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [[PATCH for-4.13]] xen/arm: mm: Allow generic xen page-tables helpers to be called early
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 10/11/19 6:11 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > This is not pretty, but I don't view this as critical to fix for Xen 4.13. > > > So > > > I am thinking to defer this post 4.13. > > > > If the issue doesn't trigger on 4.13, then I agree we shouldn't try to > > fix it (badly) at this stage. > > > > But we do have a "minus phys_offset" operation in dump_hyp_walk, I don't > > follow why we wouldn't see a problem if Xen is loaded at 1MB on arm32. > > I haven't said the issue cannot be triggered. I pointed out I don't view this > as critical. > > One of the reason is that I bet nobody ever run Xen below 1MB on Arm32. > Otherwise they would have seen an error... > > In other words, I am not going to plan to fix it for Xen 4.13. However, if > someone wants to spend time on it (and have platform to test it), then patch > are welcomed. If the issue can be triggered then I think we have a choice between fixing it (you don't necessarily have to be the one to do it) or documenting that Xen needs to be loaded above XEN_VIRT_ADDR on arm32. But see below. > > Xen pa: 0x100000 > > Xen va: 0x200000 > > phys_offset: 0xfff00000 > > > > test_va: 0x202000 > > test_va - phys_offset = 0xffffffff00300200. But it should be 0x102000. > > > Given that the problem is in a BUG_ON maybe we could remove it? Or just > > rework the BUG_ON? > > For arm32, dump_hyp_walk() is only called when the AT instruction fails to > translate a physical address. You are already doing something wrong if you > hit, so you will panic in either case. The only difference is you don't get > the page-table dumped. Why don't we change the BUG_ON like the following: diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/mm.c b/xen/arch/arm/mm.c index a6637ce347..b7883cfbab 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/mm.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/mm.c @@ -284,10 +284,7 @@ void dump_hyp_walk(vaddr_t addr) "on CPU%d via TTBR 0x%016"PRIx64"\n", addr, smp_processor_id(), ttbr); - if ( smp_processor_id() == 0 ) - BUG_ON( (lpae_t *)(unsigned long)(ttbr - phys_offset) != pgtable ); - else - BUG_ON( virt_to_maddr(pgtable) != ttbr ); + BUG_ON( virt_to_maddr(pgtable) != ttbr ); dump_pt_walk(ttbr, addr, HYP_PT_ROOT_LEVEL, 1); } We probably don't need the CPU0 special case? _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |