On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 05:27:23PM +0800, Yu Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 02:17:40PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:05:38 +0800
> > Yu Zhang <yu.c.zh...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Currently, vIOMMU is using the value of IOVA address width, instead of
> > > the host address width(HAW) to calculate the number of reserved bits in
> > > data structures such as root entries, context entries, and entries of
> > > DMA paging structures etc.
> > >
> > > However values of IOVA address width and of the HAW may not equal. For
> > > example, a 48-bit IOVA can only be mapped to host addresses no wider than
> > > 46 bits. Using 48, instead of 46 to calculate the reserved bit may result
> > > in an invalid IOVA being accepted.
> > >
> > > To fix this, a new field - haw_bits is introduced in struct
> > > IntelIOMMUState,
> > > whose value is initialized based on the maximum physical address set to
> > > guest CPU.
> >
> > > Also, definitions such as VTD_HOST_AW_39/48BIT etc. are renamed
> > > to clarify.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zh...@linux.intel.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -3100,6 +3104,8 @@ static void vtd_iommu_replay(IOMMUMemoryRegion
> > > *iommu_mr, IOMMUNotifier *n)
> > > static void vtd_init(IntelIOMMUState *s)
> > > {
> > > X86IOMMUState *x86_iommu = X86_IOMMU_DEVICE(s);
> > > + CPUState *cs = first_cpu;
> > > + X86CPU *cpu = X86_CPU(cs);
> > >
> > > memset(s->csr, 0, DMAR_REG_SIZE);
> > > memset(s->wmask, 0, DMAR_REG_SIZE);
> > > @@ -3119,23 +3125,24 @@ static void vtd_init(IntelIOMMUState *s)
> > > s->cap = VTD_CAP_FRO | VTD_CAP_NFR | VTD_CAP_ND |
> > > VTD_CAP_MAMV | VTD_CAP_PSI | VTD_CAP_SLLPS |
> > > VTD_CAP_SAGAW_39bit | VTD_CAP_MGAW(s->aw_bits);
> > > - if (s->aw_bits == VTD_HOST_AW_48BIT) {
> > > + if (s->aw_bits == VTD_AW_48BIT) {
> > > s->cap |= VTD_CAP_SAGAW_48bit;
> > > }
> > > s->ecap = VTD_ECAP_QI | VTD_ECAP_IRO;
> > > + s->haw_bits = cpu->phys_bits;
> > Is it possible to avoid accessing CPU fields directly or cpu altogether
> > and set phys_bits when iommu is created?
>
> Thanks for your comments, Igor.
>
> Well, I guess you prefer not to query the CPU capabilities while deciding
> the vIOMMU features. But to me, they are not that irrelevant.:)
>
> Here the hardware address width in vt-d, and the one in cpuid.MAXPHYSADDR
> are referring to the same concept. In VM, both are the maximum guest physical
> address width. If we do not check the CPU field here, we will still have to
> check the CPU field in other places such as build_dmar_q35(), and reset the
> s->haw_bits again.
>
> Is this explanation convincing enough? :)
>
> >
> > Perhaps Eduardo
> > can suggest better approach, since he's more familiar with phys_bits topic
>
> @Eduardo, any comments? Thanks!
Configuring IOMMU phys-bits automatically depending on the
configured CPU is OK, but accessing first_cpu directly in iommu
code is. I suggest delegating this to the machine object, e.g.:
uint32_t pc_max_phys_bits(PCMachineState *pcms)
{
return object_property_get_uint(OBJECT(first_cpu), "phys-bits",
&error_abort);
}
as the machine itself is responsible for creating the CPU
objects, and I believe there are other places in PC code where we
do physical address calculations that could be affected by the
physical address space size.
--
Eduardo
