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

[Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:04 AM Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 02:01:47PM -0500, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 3:43 PM Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:09 PM Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com> 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
> > > > > <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 15/03/2019 09:17, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> From: Jason Andryuk [mailto:jandryuk@gmail.com]
> > > > > > >> Sent: 14 March 2019 18:16
> > > > > > >> To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>
> > > > > > >> Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com; Simon
> > > > > > >> Gaiser <simon@invisiblethingslab.com>; Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>; Anthony Perard
> > > > > > >> <anthony.perard@citrix.com>
> > > > > > >> 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 <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >>>> From: Jason Andryuk [mailto:jandryuk@gmail.com]
> > > > > > >>>> Sent: 11 March 2019 18:02
> > > > > > >>>> To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> > > > > > >>>> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com; Simon Gaiser
> > > > > > >>>> <simon@invisiblethingslab.com>; Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@gmail.com>; Stefano Stabellini
> > > > > > >>>> <sstabellini@kernel.org>; Anthony Perard <anthony.perard@citrix.com>; Paul Durrant
> > > > > > >>>> <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>
> > > > > > >>>> Subject: [PATCH 6/6] xen-pt: Round pci regions sizes to XEN_PAGE_SIZE
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> From: Simon Gaiser <simon@invisiblethingslab.com>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> 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?
>
> Hm, I'm half minded regarding this patch. It feels more like a bandaid
> than a proper solution. Mapping BARs not multiple of page-sizes is
> dangerous because AFAIK there's no entity that asserts there isn't any
> other BAR from a different device on the same page, and hence you
> might end up mapping some MMIO region from another device
> inadvertently.

We have the guest, linux stubdom with qemu, & dom0. Are you concerned
that all of them need a minimum of page alignment?

Linux PCI subsytem has an option resource_alignment that can be
applied to either a single device or all devices.  Booting with
pci=resource_aligment=4096 will align each device to a page.  Do you
think pciback should force resource_alignment=4096 for dom0?  Are
there other MMIO ranges to be concerned about adjacent to BARs?

On my one test machine with a BAR smaller than 4096, the firmware
already sets an alignment of 4096.  Linux dom0 seems to keep the
firmware BAR alignment by default.

> Anyway, I can formally submit the patch since it's no worse than
> what's currently done, but I would clearly state this is not safe in
> it's current state.

Regards,
Jason