On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 03:30:21PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.05.2023 12:22, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:00:51PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 10.05.2023 10:27, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 06:06:45PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 09.05.2023 12:41, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>>>> When translating an address that falls inside of a superpage in the
> >>>>> IOMMU page tables the fetching of the PTE physical address field
> >>>>> wasn't using dma_pte_addr(), which caused the returned data to be
> >>>>> corrupt as it would contain bits not related to the address field.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm afraid I don't understand:
> >>>>
> >>>>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
> >>>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/vtd/iommu.c
> >>>>> @@ -359,16 +359,18 @@ static uint64_t addr_to_dma_page_maddr(struct
> >>>>> domain *domain, daddr_t addr,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if ( !alloc )
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> - pte_maddr = 0;
> >>>>> if ( !dma_pte_present(*pte) )
> >>>>> + {
> >>>>> + pte_maddr = 0;
> >>>>> break;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /*
> >>>>> * When the leaf entry was requested, pass back the
> >>>>> full PTE,
> >>>>> * with the address adjusted to account for the
> >>>>> residual of
> >>>>> * the walk.
> >>>>> */
> >>>>> - pte_maddr = pte->val +
> >>>>> + pte_maddr +=
> >>>>> (addr & ((1UL << level_to_offset_bits(level)) - 1)
> >>>>> &
> >>>>> PAGE_MASK);
> >>>>
> >>>> With this change you're now violating what the comment says (plus what
> >>>> the comment ahead of the function says). And it says what it says for
> >>>> a reason - see intel_iommu_lookup_page(), which I think your change is
> >>>> breaking.
> >>>
> >>> Hm, but the code in intel_iommu_lookup_page() is now wrong as it takes
> >>> the bits in DMA_PTE_CONTIG_MASK as part of the physical address when
> >>> doing the conversion to mfn? maddr_to_mfn() doesn't perform a any
> >>> masking to remove the bits above PADDR_BITS.
> >>
> >> Oh, right. But that's a missing dma_pte_addr() in intel_iommu_lookup_page()
> >> then. (It would likely be better anyway to switch "uint64_t val" to
> >> "struct dma_pte pte" there, to make more visible that it's a PTE we're
> >> dealing with.) I indeed overlooked this aspect when doing the earlier
> >> change.
> >
> > I guess I'm still confused, as the other return value for target == 0
> > (when the address is not part of a superpage) does return
> > dma_pte_addr(pte). I think that needs further fixing then.
>
> Hmm, indeed. But I think it's worse than this: addr_to_dma_page_maddr()
> also does one too many iterations in that case. All "normal" callers
> supply a positive "target". We need to terminate the walk at level 1
> also when target == 0.
Don't we do that already due to the following check:
if ( --level == target )
break;
Which prevents mapping the PTE address as a page table directory?
Thanks, Roger.
