Re: [PATCH v1] acpi: increase maximum size for "etc/table-loader" blob

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 04:26:39PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 10:49:08 +0100
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 02.03.21 19:43, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >>>> The resizeable memory region that is created for the cmd blob has a 
> > >>>> maximum
> > >>>> size of ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE - 4k. This used to be sufficient, 
> > >>>> however,  
> > >>
> > >> The expression "ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE - 4k" makes no sense to me.
> > >> ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE is #defined in "hw/i386/acpi-build.c" as 0x1000,
> > >> so the difference (ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE - 4k) is zero.
> > >>
> > >> (1) Did you mean "ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE -- 4k"? IOW, did you mean to
> > >> quote the value of the macro?
> > >>
> > >> If you mean an em dash, then please use an em dash, not a hyphen (or
> > >> please use parens).  
> > > 
> > > Yes, or rather use ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE (4k).
> > >   
> > >>
> > >>  
> > >>>> as we try fitting in additional data (e.g., vmgenid, nvdimm, 
> > >>>> intel-iommu),
> > >>>> we require more than 4k and can crash QEMU when trying to resize the
> > >>>> resizeable memory region beyond its maximum size:
> > >>>>     $ build/qemu-system-x86_64 --enable-kvm \
> > >>>>         -machine q35,nvdimm=on \
> > >>>>         -smp 1 \
> > >>>>         -cpu host \
> > >>>>         -m size=2G,slots=8,maxmem=4G \
> > >>>>         -object 
> > >>>> memory-backend-file,id=mem0,mem-path=/tmp/nvdimm,size=256M \
> > >>>>         -device nvdimm,label-size=131072,memdev=mem0,id=nvdimm0,slot=1 
> > >>>> \
> > >>>>         -nodefaults \
> > >>>>         -device vmgenid \
> > >>>>         -device intel-iommu
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Results in:
> > >>>>     Unexpected error in qemu_ram_resize() at ../softmmu/physmem.c:1850:
> > >>>>     qemu-system-x86_64: Size too large: /rom@etc/table-loader:
> > >>>>       0x2000 > 0x1000: Invalid argument
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We try growing the resizeable memory region (resizeable RAMBlock) 
> > >>>> beyond
> > >>>> its maximum size. Let's increase the maximum size from 4k to 64k, which
> > >>>> should be good enough for the near future.  
> > >>
> > >> The existent code calls acpi_align_size(), for resizing the ACPI blobs
> > >> (the GArray objects).
> > >>
> > >> (Unfortunately, the acpi_align_size() function is duplicated between
> > >> "hw/i386/acpi-build.c" and "hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c", which seems
> > >> unjustified -- but anyway, I digress.)
> > >>
> > >> This seems to come from commit 868270f23d8d ("acpi-build: tweak acpi
> > >> migration limits", 2014-07-29) and commit 451b157041d2 ("acpi: Align the
> > >> size to 128k", 2020-12-08).
> > >>
> > >> (2) Why is the logic added in those commits insufficient?  
> > > 
> > > We are dealing with different blobs here (tables_blob vs. cmd_blob).
> > >   
> > >>
> > >> What is the exact call tree that triggers the above error?  
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > acpi_build_update()->acpi_build_update()->memory_region_ram_resize()->qemu_ram_resize()
> > > 
> > > A longer calltrace can be found in 
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927159.
> > >   
> > >>>> +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-microvm.c
> > >>>> @@ -255,7 +255,8 @@ void acpi_setup_microvm(MicrovmMachineState *mms)
> > >>>>                          ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_MAX_SIZE);
> > >>>>        acpi_add_rom_blob(acpi_build_no_update, NULL,
> > >>>>                          tables.linker->cmd_blob,
> > >>>> -                      "etc/table-loader", 0);
> > >>>> +                      ACPI_BUILD_LOADER_FILE,
> > >>>> +                      ACPI_BUILD_LOADER_MAX_SIZE);
> > >>>>        acpi_add_rom_blob(acpi_build_no_update, NULL,
> > >>>>                          tables.rsdp,
> > >>>>                          ACPI_BUILD_RSDP_FILE, 0);  
> > >>
> > >> (3) Why are we using a different "tool" here, from the previous
> > >> approach? We're no longer setting the GArray sizes; instead, we make the
> > >> "rom->romsize" fields diverge from -- put differently, grow beyond --
> > >> "rom->datasize". Why is that useful? What are the consequences?  
> > > 
> > > See ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_MAX_SIZE handling just in the acpi_add_rom_blob() 
> > > above.
> > >   
> > >>
> > >> Where is it ensured that data between "rom->datasize" and "rom->romsize"
> > >> reads as zeroes?  
> > > We only expose the current memory_region_size() to our guest, which is
> > > always multiples of 4k pages.
> > > 
> > > rom->datasize and rom->romsize will be multiple of 4k AFAIKs.
> > > 
> > > acpi_align_size()-> g_array_set_size() will take care of zeroing out
> > > any unused parts within a single 4k page.
> > > 
> > > So all unused, guest-visible part should always be 0 I think.
> > >   
> > >>
> > >>  
> > >>>> diff --git a/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h b/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h
> > >>>> index 380d3e3924..93cdfd4006 100644
> > >>>> --- a/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h
> > >>>> +++ b/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h
> > >>>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    /* Reserve RAM space for tables: add another order of magnitude. */
> > >>>>    #define ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_MAX_SIZE         0x200000
> > >>>> +#define ACPI_BUILD_LOADER_MAX_SIZE        0x40000
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6 "BOCHS "
> > >>>>    #define ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME8 "BXPC    "  
> > >>>  
> > >>
> > >> The commit message says "Let's increase the maximum size from 4k to
> > >> 64k", and I have two problems with that:
> > >>
> > >> (4a) I have no idea where the current "4k" size comes from. (In case the
> > >> 4k refers to ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE, then why are we not changing that
> > >> macro?)  
> > > 
> > > Changing ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE would affect the legacy_table_size in
> > > acpi_build() - so that can't be right.
> > > 
> > > What would also work is something like (to be improved)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> > > index 45ad2f9533..49cfedddc8 100644
> > > --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> > > +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> > > @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@
> > >    #define ACPI_BUILD_LEGACY_CPU_AML_SIZE    97
> > >    #define ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE             0x1000
> > >    
> > > +#define ACPI_BUILD_LOADER_ALIGN_SIZE      0x2000
> > > +
> > >    #define ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_SIZE             0x20000
> > >    
> > >    /* #define DEBUG_ACPI_BUILD */
> > > @@ -2613,10 +2615,10 @@ void acpi_build(AcpiBuildTables *tables, 
> > > MachineState *machine)
> > >                error_printf("Try removing CPUs, NUMA nodes, memory slots"
> > >                             " or PCI bridges.");
> > >            }
> > > -        acpi_align_size(tables_blob, ACPI_BUILD_TABLE_SIZE);
> > > +        acpi_align_size(tables_blob, ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE);
> > >        }
> > >    
> > > -    acpi_align_size(tables->linker->cmd_blob, ACPI_BUILD_ALIGN_SIZE);
> > > +    acpi_align_size(tables->linker->cmd_blob, 
> > > ACPI_BUILD_LOADER_ALIGN_SIZE);
> > > 
> > > 
> > > At least for hw/i386/acpi-build.c.
> > > 
> > > We will end up creating the resizeable memory region/RAMBlock always with
> > > a size=maximum_size=8k. (could also go for 64k here)
> > > 
> > > The only downside is that we might expose a bigger area to the
> > > guest than necessary (e.g., 8k instead of 4k) and will e.g., migrate
> > > 8k instead of 4k (not that we care).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On incoming migration from older QEMU versions, we should be able to just
> > > shrink back from 8k to 4k - so migration from older QEMY versions should
> > > continue working just fine.  
> > 
> > Correction: Older QEMU versions (e.g., before 
> > 62be4e3a5041e84304aa23637da623a205c53ecc) did not support resizeable RAM 
> > MemoryRegions / RAMBlocks. This affects ~ < QEMU v2.3.0.
> > 
> > So unconditionally changing the size of the cmd_blob memory region 
> > (e.g., 4k -> 8k) would most probably break migration from never QEMU to 
> > older QEMU (v2.2.0.). Not sure if we really care.
> > 
> > @MST, Igor what's your take?
> We shouldn't change aligned size (an alignment value), since it's what goes
> on migration stream wire.
> Changing max should not affect migrations stream directly.
> In most cases ping-pong migration should work as both sides will have
> the same configuration, in unlikely case newer QEMU goes over current 4k,
> it will jump to the next aligned size (8k) and migration will fail cleanly
> due size mismatch and it can't be made any more prettier.
> (similar to border cases when we switched to resizable regions for main tables
> blob)

Right. We can backort the change in the stable tree too.
I do think that we should add some kind of entry to the
command though when mcfg is disabled so the size doesn't change
like that. Will avoid weird failures if there's a convoluted config
which overflows again, it will fail cleanly on qemu start.
How about a dummy SSDT?

-- 
MST