On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 22:48 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> > Am 13.01.2014 um 22:39 schrieb Alex Williamson <alex.william...@redhat.com>:
> >
> >> On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 16:03 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>> On 12.01.2014, at 08:54, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:31:36AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 14:55 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 03:42:22PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 23:56 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:03:26PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 11:47 -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 20:00 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:24:47AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 20:30 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As an alternative to commit 818f86b (exec: limit system memory
> >>>>>>>>>>>> size, 2013-11-04) let's just make all address spaces 64-bit wide.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This eliminates problems with phys_page_find ignoring bits above
> >>>>>>>>>>>> TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_SPACE_BITS and address_space_translate_internal
> >>>>>>>>>>>> consequently messing up the computations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In Luiz's reported crash, at startup gdb attempts to read from
> >>>>>>>>>>>> address
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 0xffffffffffffffe6 to 0xffffffffffffffff inclusive. The region
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it gets
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is the newly introduced master abort region, which is as big as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the PCI
> >>>>>>>>>>>> address space (see pci_bus_init). Due to a typo that's only
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2^63-1,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not 2^64. But we get it anyway because phys_page_find ignores
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the upper
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bits of the physical address. In
> >>>>>>>>>>>> address_space_translate_internal then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff = int128_sub(section->mr->size, int128_make64(addr));
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *plen = int128_get64(int128_min(diff, int128_make64(*plen)));
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff becomes negative, and int128_get64 booms.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The size of the PCI address space region should be fixed anyway.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Reported-by: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exec.c | 8 ++------
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
> >>>>>>>>>>>> index 7e5ce93..f907f5f 100644
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/exec.c
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/exec.c
> >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ struct PhysPageEntry {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> #define PHYS_MAP_NODE_NIL (((uint32_t)~0) >> 6)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> /* Size of the L2 (and L3, etc) page tables. */
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -#define ADDR_SPACE_BITS TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_SPACE_BITS
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +#define ADDR_SPACE_BITS 64
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> #define P_L2_BITS 10
> >>>>>>>>>>>> #define P_L2_SIZE (1 << P_L2_BITS)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1861,11 +1861,7 @@ static void memory_map_init(void)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> system_memory = g_malloc(sizeof(*system_memory));
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - assert(ADDR_SPACE_BITS <= 64);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - memory_region_init(system_memory, NULL, "system",
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - ADDR_SPACE_BITS == 64 ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - UINT64_MAX : (0x1ULL <<
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ADDR_SPACE_BITS));
> >>>>>>>>>>>> + memory_region_init(system_memory, NULL, "system",
> >>>>>>>>>>>> UINT64_MAX);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> address_space_init(&address_space_memory, system_memory,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "memory");
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> system_io = g_malloc(sizeof(*system_io));
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This seems to have some unexpected consequences around sizing
> >>>>>>>>>>> 64bit PCI
> >>>>>>>>>>> BARs that I'm not sure how to handle.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> BARs are often disabled during sizing. Maybe you
> >>>>>>>>>> don't detect BAR being disabled?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> See the trace below, the BARs are not disabled. QEMU pci-core is
> >>>>>>>>> doing
> >>>>>>>>> the sizing an memory region updates for the BARs, vfio is just a
> >>>>>>>>> pass-through here.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sorry, not in the trace below, but yes the sizing seems to be
> >>>>>>>> happening
> >>>>>>>> while I/O & memory are enabled int he command register. Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Alex
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OK then from QEMU POV this BAR value is not special at all.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Unfortunately
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> After this patch I get vfio
> >>>>>>>>>>> traces like this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> vfio: vfio_pci_read_config(0000:01:10.0, @0x10, len=0x4) febe0004
> >>>>>>>>>>> (save lower 32bits of BAR)
> >>>>>>>>>>> vfio: vfio_pci_write_config(0000:01:10.0, @0x10, 0xffffffff,
> >>>>>>>>>>> len=0x4)
> >>>>>>>>>>> (write mask to BAR)
> >>>>>>>>>>> vfio: region_del febe0000 - febe3fff
> >>>>>>>>>>> (memory region gets unmapped)
> >>>>>>>>>>> vfio: vfio_pci_read_config(0000:01:10.0, @0x10, len=0x4) ffffc004
> >>>>>>>>>>> (read size mask)
> >>>>>>>>>>> vfio: vfio_pci_write_config(0000:01:10.0, @0x10, 0xfebe0004,
> >>>>>>>>>>> len=0x4)
> >>>>>>>>>>> (restore BAR)
> >>>>>>>>>>> vfio: region_add febe0000 - febe3fff [0x7fcf3654d000]
> >>>>>>>>>>> (memory region re-mapped)
> >>>>>>>>>>> vfio: vfio_pci_read_config(0000:01:10.0, @0x14, len=0x4) 0
> >>>>>>>>>>> (save upper 32bits of BAR)
> >>>>>>>>>>> vfio: vfio_pci_write_config(0000:01:10.0, @0x14, 0xffffffff,
> >>>>>>>>>>> len=0x4)
> >>>>>>>>>>> (write mask to BAR)
> >>>>>>>>>>> vfio: region_del febe0000 - febe3fff
> >>>>>>>>>>> (memory region gets unmapped)
> >>>>>>>>>>> vfio: region_add fffffffffebe0000 - fffffffffebe3fff
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0x7fcf3654d000]
> >>>>>>>>>>> (memory region gets re-mapped with new address)
> >>>>>>>>>>> qemu-system-x86_64: vfio_dma_map(0x7fcf38861710,
> >>>>>>>>>>> 0xfffffffffebe0000, 0x4000, 0x7fcf3654d000) = -14 (Bad address)
> >>>>>>>>>>> (iommu barfs because it can only handle 48bit physical addresses)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why are you trying to program BAR addresses for dma in the iommu?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Two reasons, first I can't tell the difference between RAM and MMIO.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why can't you? Generally memory core let you find out easily.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My MemoryListener is setup for &address_space_memory and I then filter
> >>>>>> out anything that's not memory_region_is_ram(). This still gets
> >>>>>> through, so how do I easily find out?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But in this case it's vfio device itself that is sized so for sure you
> >>>>>>> know it's MMIO.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How so? I have a MemoryListener as described above and pass everything
> >>>>>> through to the IOMMU. I suppose I could look through all the
> >>>>>> VFIODevices and check if the MemoryRegion matches, but that seems
> >>>>>> really
> >>>>>> ugly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Maybe you will have same issue if there's another device with a 64 bit
> >>>>>>> bar though, like ivshmem?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps, I suspect I'll see anything that registers their BAR
> >>>>>> MemoryRegion from memory_region_init_ram or memory_region_init_ram_ptr.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Must be a 64 bit BAR to trigger the issue though.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Second, it enables peer-to-peer DMA between devices, which is
> >>>>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>>>> that we might be able to take advantage of with GPU passthrough.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Prior to this change, there was no re-map with the
> >>>>>>>>>>> fffffffffebe0000
> >>>>>>>>>>> address, presumably because it was beyond the address space of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the PCI
> >>>>>>>>>>> window. This address is clearly not in a PCI MMIO space, so why
> >>>>>>>>>>> are we
> >>>>>>>>>>> allowing it to be realized in the system address space at this
> >>>>>>>>>>> location?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it is not in PCI MMIO space?
> >>>>>>>>>> True, CPU can't access this address but other pci devices can.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What happens on real hardware when an address like this is
> >>>>>>>>> programmed to
> >>>>>>>>> a device? The CPU doesn't have the physical bits to access it. I
> >>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>> serious doubts that another PCI device would be able to access it
> >>>>>>>>> either. Maybe in some limited scenario where the devices are on the
> >>>>>>>>> same conventional PCI bus. In the typical case, PCI addresses are
> >>>>>>>>> always limited by some kind of aperture, whether that's explicit in
> >>>>>>>>> bridge windows or implicit in hardware design (and perhaps made
> >>>>>>>>> explicit
> >>>>>>>>> in ACPI). Even if I wanted to filter these out as noise in vfio,
> >>>>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>>> would I do it in a way that still allows real 64bit MMIO to be
> >>>>>>>>> programmed. PCI has this knowledge, I hope. VFIO doesn't. Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Alex
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> AFAIK PCI doesn't have that knowledge as such. PCI spec is explicit
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> full 64 bit addresses must be allowed and hardware validation
> >>>>>>> test suites normally check that it actually does work
> >>>>>>> if it happens.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure, PCI devices themselves, but the chipset typically has defined
> >>>>>> routing, that's more what I'm referring to. There are generally only
> >>>>>> fixed address windows for RAM vs MMIO.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The physical chipset? Likely - in the presence of IOMMU.
> >>>>> Without that, devices can talk to each other without going
> >>>>> through chipset, and bridge spec is very explicit that
> >>>>> full 64 bit addressing must be supported.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So as long as we don't emulate an IOMMU,
> >>>>> guest will normally think it's okay to use any address.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, if there's a bridge somewhere on the path that bridge's
> >>>>>>> windows would protect you, but pci already does this filtering:
> >>>>>>> if you see this address in the memory map this means
> >>>>>>> your virtual device is on root bus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So I think it's the other way around: if VFIO requires specific
> >>>>>>> address ranges to be assigned to devices, it should give this
> >>>>>>> info to qemu and qemu can give this to guest.
> >>>>>>> Then anything outside that range can be ignored by VFIO.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then we get into deficiencies in the IOMMU API and maybe VFIO. There's
> >>>>>> currently no way to find out the address width of the IOMMU. We've
> >>>>>> been
> >>>>>> getting by because it's safely close enough to the CPU address width to
> >>>>>> not be a concern until we start exposing things at the top of the 64bit
> >>>>>> address space. Maybe I can safely ignore anything above
> >>>>>> TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_SPACE_BITS for now. Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alex
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it's not related to target CPU at all - it's a host limitation.
> >>>>> So just make up your own constant, maybe depending on host architecture.
> >>>>> Long term add an ioctl to query it.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's a hardware limitation which I'd imagine has some loose ties to the
> >>>> physical address bits of the CPU.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Also, we can add a fwcfg interface to tell bios that it should avoid
> >>>>> placing BARs above some address.
> >>>>
> >>>> That doesn't help this case, it's a spurious mapping caused by sizing
> >>>> the BARs with them enabled. We may still want such a thing to feed into
> >>>> building ACPI tables though.
> >>>
> >>> Well the point is that if you want BIOS to avoid
> >>> specific addresses, you need to tell it what to avoid.
> >>> But neither BIOS nor ACPI actually cover the range above
> >>> 2^48 ATM so it's not a high priority.
> >>>
> >>>>> Since it's a vfio limitation I think it should be a vfio API, along the
> >>>>> lines of vfio_get_addr_space_bits(void).
> >>>>> (Is this true btw? legacy assignment doesn't have this problem?)
> >>>>
> >>>> It's an IOMMU hardware limitation, legacy assignment has the same
> >>>> problem. It looks like legacy will abort() in QEMU for the failed
> >>>> mapping and I'm planning to tighten vfio to also kill the VM for failed
> >>>> mappings. In the short term, I think I'll ignore any mappings above
> >>>> TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_SPACE_BITS,
> >>>
> >>> That seems very wrong. It will still fail on an x86 host if we are
> >>> emulating a CPU with full 64 bit addressing. The limitation is on the
> >>> host side there's no real reason to tie it to the target.
> >
> > I doubt vfio would be the only thing broken in that case.
> >
> >>>> long term vfio already has an IOMMU info
> >>>> ioctl that we could use to return this information, but we'll need to
> >>>> figure out how to get it out of the IOMMU driver first.
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex
> >>>
> >>> Short term, just assume 48 bits on x86.
> >
> > I hate to pick an arbitrary value since we have a very specific mapping
> > we're trying to avoid. Perhaps a better option is to skip anything
> > where:
> >
> > MemoryRegionSection.offset_within_address_space >
> > ~MemoryRegionSection.offset_within_address_space
> >
> >>> We need to figure out what's the limitation on ppc and arm -
> >>> maybe there's none and it can address full 64 bit range.
> >>
> >> IIUC on PPC and ARM you always have BAR windows where things can get
> >> mapped into. Unlike x86 where the full phyiscal address range can be
> >> overlayed by BARs.
> >>
> >> Or did I misunderstand the question?
> >
> > Sounds right, if either BAR mappings outside the window will not be
> > realized in the memory space or the IOMMU has a full 64bit address
> > space, there's no problem. Here we have an intermediate step in the BAR
> > sizing producing a stray mapping that the IOMMU hardware can't handle.
> > Even if we could handle it, it's not clear that we want to. On AMD-Vi
> > the IOMMU pages tables can grow to 6-levels deep. A stray mapping like
> > this then causes space and time overhead until the tables are pruned
> > back down. Thanks,
>
> I thought sizing is hard defined as a set to
> -1? Can't we check for that one special case and treat it as "not mapped, but
> tell the guest the size in config space"?
PCI doesn't want to handle this as anything special to differentiate a
sizing mask from a valid BAR address. I agree though, I'd prefer to
never see a spurious address like this in my MemoryListener.
