Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 7:32 PM Marc-André Lureau > <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> From: Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> Implement a virtual memory device for the TPM Physical Presence interface. >> The memory is located at 0xFED45000 and used by ACPI to send messages to the >> firmware (BIOS) and by the firmware to provide parameters for each one of >> the supported codes. >> >> This interface should be used by all TPM devices on x86 and can be >> added by calling tpm_ppi_init_io(). >> >> Note: bios_linker cannot be used to allocate the PPI memory region, >> since the reserved memory should stay stable across reboots, and might >> be needed before the ACPI tables are installed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> >> Reviewed-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
.... >> + */ >> +#define TPM_PPI_ADDR_SIZE 0x400 >> +#define TPM_PPI_ADDR_BASE 0xFED45000 > There is a (new) issue with the PPI ram region: > > READ of size 32 at 0x61d000090480 thread T6 > #0 0x5622bd8de0f4 in buffer_zero_avx2 > /home/elmarco/src/qq/util/bufferiszero.c:169 > #1 0x5622bd8de899 in select_accel_fn > /home/elmarco/src/qq/util/bufferiszero.c:282 > #2 0x5622bd8de8f1 in buffer_is_zero > /home/elmarco/src/qq/util/bufferiszero.c:309 > #3 0x5622bc209f94 in is_zero_range /home/elmarco/src/qq/migration/ram.c:82 > #4 0x5622bc21938d in save_zero_page_to_file > /home/elmarco/src/qq/migration/ram.c:1694 > #5 0x5622bc219452 in save_zero_page > /home/elmarco/src/qq/migration/ram.c:1713 > #6 0x5622bc21db67 in ram_save_target_page > /home/elmarco/src/qq/migration/ram.c:2289 > #7 0x5622bc21e13e in ram_save_host_page > /home/elmarco/src/qq/migration/ram.c:2351 > #8 0x5622bc21ea3a in ram_find_and_save_block > /home/elmarco/src/qq/migration/ram.c:2413 > #9 0x5622bc223b5d in ram_save_iterate > /home/elmarco/src/qq/migration/ram.c:3193 > #10 0x5622bd16f544 in qemu_savevm_state_iterate > /home/elmarco/src/qq/migration/savevm.c:1103 > #11 0x5622bd157e75 in migration_iteration_run > /home/elmarco/src/qq/migration/migration.c:2897 > #12 0x5622bd15892e in migration_thread > /home/elmarco/src/qq/migration/migration.c:3018 > #13 0x5622bd902f31 in qemu_thread_start > /home/elmarco/src/qq/util/qemu-thread-posix.c:504 > #14 0x7f42f0ef4593 in start_thread (/lib64/libpthread.so.0+0x7593) > #15 0x7f42f0c280de in clone (/lib64/libc.so.6+0xfa0de) > 0x61d000090490 is located 0 bytes to the right of 2064-byte region > [0x61d00008fc80,0x61d000090490) > > migration code is assuming RAM is multiple of TARGET_PAGE_SIZE. Physical RAM is multiple of TARGET_PAGE_SIZE O:-) That assumtion is held in too many places, if you can change the size to be multiple of page size, that would be greate. > Should the migration code be fixed, or should the TPM code allocate > ram differently? Migration people (i.e. me) would preffer that you fix the TPM allocation. Or you can decide that this is *not* RAM. The unit of transfer for migrate ram is ram pages, a.k.a. TARGET_PAGE_SIZE. > In all case, I think the migration code should either be fixed or have > an assert. An assert for sure. Fixed .... Do we have real devices that put ram regions that are smaller than page size? Later, Juan.