Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/6] xen-pt: Round pci regions sizes to XEN_PAGE_SIZE

[Jason Andryuk]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 3:43 PM Jason Andryuk <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:09 PM Roger Pau Monné <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 01:28:47PM -0400, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:28 PM Andrew Cooper
> > > <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 15/03/2019 09:17, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: Jason Andryuk [mailto:address@hidden]
> > > > >> Sent: 14 March 2019 18:16
> > > > >> To: Paul Durrant <address@hidden>
> > > > >> Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden; Simon
> > > > >> Gaiser <address@hidden>; Stefano Stabellini <address@hidden>; 
> > > > >> Anthony Perard
> > > > >> <address@hidden>
> > > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] xen-pt: Round pci regions sizes to 
> > > > >> XEN_PAGE_SIZE
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:09 AM Paul Durrant <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>> From: Jason Andryuk [mailto:address@hidden]
> > > > >>>> Sent: 11 March 2019 18:02
> > > > >>>> To: address@hidden
> > > > >>>> Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden; Simon Gaiser
> > > > >>>> <address@hidden>; Jason Andryuk <address@hidden>; Stefano 
> > > > >>>> Stabellini
> > > > >>>> <address@hidden>; Anthony Perard <address@hidden>; Paul Durrant
> > > > >>>> <address@hidden>
> > > > >>>> Subject: [PATCH 6/6] xen-pt: Round pci regions sizes to 
> > > > >>>> XEN_PAGE_SIZE
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> From: Simon Gaiser <address@hidden>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> If a pci memory region has a size < XEN_PAGE_SIZE it can get 
> > > > >>>> located at
> > > > >>>> an address which is not page aligned.
> > > > >>> IIRC the PCI spec says that the minimum memory region size should 
> > > > >>> be at least 4k. Should we even be
> > > > >> tolerating BARs smaller than that?
> > > > >>>   Paul
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Hi, Paul.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Simon found this, so it affects a real device.  Simon, do you recall
> > > > >> which device was affected?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think BARs only need to be power-of-two size and aligned, and 4k is
> > > > >> not a minimum.  16bytes may be a minimum, but I don't know what the
> > > > >> spec says.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On an Ivy Bridge system, here are some of the devices with BARs 
> > > > >> smaller than 4K:
> > > > >> 00:16.0 Communication controller: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210
> > > > >> Series Chipset Family MEI Controller #1 (rev 04)
> > > > >>    Memory at d0735000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [disabled] [size=16]
> > > > >> 00:1d.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series 
> > > > >> Chipset
> > > > >> Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #1 (rev 04) (prog-if 20 [EHCI])
> > > > >>    Memory at d0739000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [disabled] [size=1K]
> > > > >> 00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family
> > > > >> SMBus Controller (rev 04)
> > > > >>    Memory at d0734000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [disabled] 
> > > > >> [size=256]
> > > > >> 02:00.0 System peripheral: JMicron Technology Corp. SD/MMC Host
> > > > >> Controller (rev 30)
> > > > >>    Memory at d0503000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [disabled] 
> > > > >> [size=256]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> These examples are all 4K aligned, so this is not an issue on this 
> > > > >> machine.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Reviewing the code, I'm now wondering if the following in
> > > > >> hw/xen/xen_pt.c:xen_pt_region_update is wrong:        rc =
> > > > >> xc_domain_memory_mapping(xen_xc, xen_domid,
> > > > >>                                      XEN_PFN(guest_addr + 
> > > > >> XC_PAGE_SIZE - 1),
> > > > >>                                      XEN_PFN(machine_addr + 
> > > > >> XC_PAGE_SIZE - 1),
> > > > >>                                      XEN_PFN(size + XC_PAGE_SIZE - 
> > > > >> 1),
> > > > >>                                      op);
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If a bar of size 0x100 is at 0xd0500800, then the machine_addr passed
> > > > >> in would be 0xd0501000 which is past the actual location.  Should the
> > > > >> call arguments just be XEN_PFN(guest_addr) & XEN_PFN(machine_addr)?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> BARs smaller than a page would also be a problem if BARs for 
> > > > >> different
> > > > >> devices shared the same page.
> > > > > Exactly. We cannot pass them through with any degree of safety (not 
> > > > > that passthrough of an arbitrary device is a particularly safe thing 
> > > > > to do anyway). The xen-pt code would instead need to trap those BARs 
> > > > > and perform the accesses to the real BAR itself. Ultimately though I 
> > > > > think we should be retiring the xen-pt code in favour of a standalone 
> > > > > emulator.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't matter if the BAR is smaller than 4k, if there are holes next
> > > > to it.
> > > >
> > > > Do we know what the case is in practice for these USB controllers?
> > > >
> > > > If the worst comes to the worst, we can re-enumerate the PCI bus to
> > > > ensure that all bars smaller than 4k still have 4k alignment between
> > > > them.  That way we can safely pass them through even when they are 
> > > > smaller.
> > >
> > > Andrew, thanks for checking the spec on the minimum BAR size.
> > >
> > > Dropping the Round PCI region patch from QMEU, the guest HVM will have:
> > >
> > > 00:06.0 SD Host controller: Ricoh Co Ltd PCIe SDXC/MMC Host Controller 
> > > (rev 07)
> > >     Memory at f2028800 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]
> > > 00:07.0 USB controller: NEC Corporation uPD720200 USB 3.0 Host
> > > Controller (rev 04) (prog-if 30 [XHCI])
> > >     Memory at f2024000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=8K]
> > > 00:08.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset
> > > Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #2 (rev 05) (prog-if 20 [EHCI])
> > >     Memory at f2028000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=1K]
> > > 00:09.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset
> > > Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #1 (rev 05) (prog-if 20 [EHCI])
> > >     Memory at f2028400 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=1K]
> > >
> > > 00:09.0, 00:08.0 & 00:06.0 all share the same page.  Only 00:08.0 is
> > > working.  With some added debugging output, you'll see that the same
> > > page* is used for three of the BARs.
> > >
> > > [00:06.0] mapping guest_addr 0xf2028800 gfn 0xf2028 to maddr
> > > 0xe1a30000 mfn 0xe1a30
> > > [00:07.0] mapping guest_addr 0xf2024000 gfn 0xf2024 to maddr
> > > 0xe0800000 mfn 0xe0800
> > > [00:09.0] mapping guest_addr 0xf2028400 gfn 0xf2028 to maddr
> > > 0xe1900000 mfn 0xe1900
> > > [00:08.0] mapping guest_addr 0xf2028000 gfn 0xf2028 to maddr
> > > 0xe1a2f000 mfn 0xe1a2f
> >
> > The patch below should prevent hvmloader from placing multiple BARs on
> > the same page, could you give it a try?
> >
> > Note that this is not going to prevent the guest from moving those
> > BARs around and place them in the same page, thus breaking the initial
> > placement done by hvmloader.
> >
> > Thanks, Roger.
>
> Hi, Roger.
>
> I've minimally tested this.  Yes, this patch seems to place small BARs
> into separate pages.  The linux stubdom and QEMU then use the spacing
> as provided by hvmloader.

Roger,

Would you mind submitting this patch to Xen?

Thanks,
Jason

>
>
> > ---8<---
> > diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
> > index 0b708bf578..c433b34cd6 100644
> > --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
> > +++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/pci.c
> > @@ -489,6 +489,10 @@ void pci_setup(void)
> >
> >          resource->base = base;
> >
> > +        if ( (bar_data & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE) ==
> > +             PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_MEMORY )
> > +            resource->base = ROUNDUP(resource->base, PAGE_SIZE);
> > +
> >          pci_writel(devfn, bar_reg, bar_data);
> >          if (using_64bar)
> >              pci_writel(devfn, bar_reg + 4, bar_data_upper);
> > diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h 
> > b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h
> > index 7bca6418d2..b5554b5844 100644
> > --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h
> > +++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.h
> > @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ void __bug(char *file, int line) 
> > __attribute__((noreturn));
> >  #define MB(mb) (mb##ULL << 20)
> >  #define GB(gb) (gb##ULL << 30)
> >
> > +#define ROUNDUP(x, a) (((x) + (a) - 1) & ~((a) - 1))
> > +
> >  static inline int test_bit(unsigned int b, const void *p)
> >  {
> >      return !!(((const uint8_t *)p)[b>>3] & (1u<<(b&7)));
> >