Re: [PATCH] hvmloader: pass PCI MMIO layout to OVMF as an info table

[Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhinin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/01/2021 15:35, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> [CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT reply, click links, or open attachments 
> unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> On 01/11/21 16:26, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>> On 11/01/2021 15:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 11.01.2021 15:49, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>> On 01/11/21 15:00, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>>>>> On 11/01/2021 09:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 11.01.2021 05:53, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>>>>>>> We faced a problem with passing through a PCI device with 64GB BAR to
>>>>>>> UEFI guest. The BAR is expectedly programmed into 64-bit PCI aperture at
>>>>>>> 64G address which pushes physical address space to 37 bits. OVMF uses
>>>>>>> address width early in PEI phase to make DXE identity pages covering
>>>>>>> the whole addressable space so it needs to know the last address it 
>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>> to cover but at the same time not overdo the mappings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As there is seemingly no other way to pass or get this information in
>>>>>>> OVMF at this early phase (ACPI is not yet available, PCI is not yet 
>>>>>>> enumerated,
>>>>>>> xenstore is not yet initialized) - extend the info structure with a new
>>>>>>> table. Since the structure was initially created to be extendable -
>>>>>>> the change is backward compatible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does UEFI handle the same situation on baremetal? I'd guess it is
>>>>>> in even more trouble there, as it couldn't even read addresses from
>>>>>> BARs, but would first need to assign them (or at least calculate
>>>>>> their intended positions).
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe Laszlo or Anthony could answer this question quickly while I'm 
>>>>> investigating?
>>>>
>>>> On the bare metal, the phys address width of the processor is known.
>>>
>>> From CPUID I suppose.
>>>
>>>> OVMF does the whole calculation in reverse because there's no way for it
>>>> to know the physical address width of the physical (= host) CPU.
>>>> "Overdoing" the mappings doesn't only waste resources, it breaks hard
>>>> with EPT -- access to a GPA that is inexpressible with the phys address
>>>> width of the host CPU (= not mappable successfully with the nested page
>>>> tables) will behave super bad. I don't recall the exact symptoms, but it
>>>> prevents booting the guest OS.
>>>>
>>>> This is why the most conservative 36-bit width is assumed by default.
>>>
>>> IOW you don't trust virtualized CPUID output?
>>
>> I'm discussing this with Andrew and it appears we're certainly more lax in
>> wiring physical address width into the guest from hardware directly rather
>> than KVM.
>>
>> Another problem that I faced while experimenting is that creating page
>> tables for 46-bits (that CPUID returned in my case) of address space takes
>> about a minute on a modern CPU.
> 
> Even if you enable 1GiB pages?
> 
> (In the libvirt domain XML, it's expressed as
> 
>     <feature policy='require' name='pdpe1gb'/>
> )
> 
> ... I'm not doubtful, just curious. I guess that, when the physical
> address width is so large, a physical UEFI platform firmware will limit
> itself to a lesser width -- it could even offer some knobs in the setup TUI.

So it wasn't the feature bit that we expose by default in Xen but the OVMF 
configuration
with 1G pages disabled for that use. I enabled it and got booting even with 
46-bits
in reasonable time now.

Given we're not that sensitive in Xen to physical address being different and 
prefer to
control that on different level I'd like to abandon that ABI change approach 
(does anyone
have any objections?) and instead take physical address width directly from 
CPUID which
we do in hvmloader already. The change would be local to Xen platform.

Igor