From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2B0C2D0C0 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:01:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204BB2070A for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725997AbfLVHBh (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Dec 2019 02:01:37 -0500 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]:45872 "EHLO mga12.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725775AbfLVHBg (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Dec 2019 02:01:36 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Dec 2019 23:01:35 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,342,1571727600"; d="scan'208";a="416946691" Received: from allen-box.sh.intel.com (HELO [10.239.159.136]) ([10.239.159.136]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2019 23:01:33 -0800 Cc: "Tian, Kevin" , "Raj, Ashok" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "Kumar, Sanjay K" , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Sun, Yi Y" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Use 1st-level for IOVA translation From: Lu Baolu To: "Liu, Yi L" , Joerg Roedel , David Woodhouse , Alex Williamson References: <20191219031634.15168-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <434d7478-1ed3-1962-ff9d-1b37d0c44b9c@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: <46169833-6fae-d37e-89c3-c3abcdd31d79@linux.intel.com> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 15:00:38 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <434d7478-1ed3-1962-ff9d-1b37d0c44b9c@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Yi, On 12/21/19 11:14 AM, Lu Baolu wrote: > Hi again, > > On 2019/12/20 19:50, Liu, Yi L wrote: >> 3) Per VT-d spec, FLPT has canonical requirement to the input >> addresses. So I'd suggest to add some enhance regards to it. >> Please refer to chapter 3.6:-). >> >> 3.6 First-Level Translation >> First-level translation restricts the input-address to a canonical >> address (i.e., address bits 63:N have >> the same value as address bit [N-1], where N is 48-bits with 4-level >> paging and 57-bits with 5-level >> paging). Requests subject to first-level translation by remapping >> hardware are subject to canonical >> address checking as a pre-condition for first-level translation, and a >> violation is treated as a >> translation-fault. > > It seems to be a conflict at bit 63. It should be the same as bit[N-1] > according to the canonical address requirement; but it is also used as > the XD control. Any thought? Ignore this please. It makes no sense. :-) I confused. Best regards, baolu From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C95B1C2D0C0 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:01:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90E3A2070A for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:01:42 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 90E3A2070A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5009D1FB6B; Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:01:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ies1x25U7cza; Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:01:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024D820130; Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE15C1D81; Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4310C0881 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:01:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38A985FAD for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:01:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fxNby646ulKY for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:01:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CBCD85F92 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:01:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Dec 2019 23:01:35 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,342,1571727600"; d="scan'208";a="416946691" Received: from allen-box.sh.intel.com (HELO [10.239.159.136]) ([10.239.159.136]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2019 23:01:33 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Use 1st-level for IOVA translation From: Lu Baolu To: "Liu, Yi L" , Joerg Roedel , David Woodhouse , Alex Williamson References: <20191219031634.15168-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> <434d7478-1ed3-1962-ff9d-1b37d0c44b9c@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: <46169833-6fae-d37e-89c3-c3abcdd31d79@linux.intel.com> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 15:00:38 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <434d7478-1ed3-1962-ff9d-1b37d0c44b9c@linux.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US Cc: "Tian, Kevin" , "Raj, Ashok" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "Kumar, Sanjay K" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "Sun, Yi Y" X-BeenThere: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues for Linux IOMMU support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Sender: "iommu" Hi Yi, On 12/21/19 11:14 AM, Lu Baolu wrote: > Hi again, > > On 2019/12/20 19:50, Liu, Yi L wrote: >> 3) Per VT-d spec, FLPT has canonical requirement to the input >> addresses. So I'd suggest to add some enhance regards to it. >> Please refer to chapter 3.6:-). >> >> 3.6 First-Level Translation >> First-level translation restricts the input-address to a canonical >> address (i.e., address bits 63:N have >> the same value as address bit [N-1], where N is 48-bits with 4-level >> paging and 57-bits with 5-level >> paging). Requests subject to first-level translation by remapping >> hardware are subject to canonical >> address checking as a pre-condition for first-level translation, and a >> violation is treated as a >> translation-fault. > > It seems to be a conflict at bit 63. It should be the same as bit[N-1] > according to the canonical address requirement; but it is also used as > the XD control. Any thought? Ignore this please. It makes no sense. :-) I confused. Best regards, baolu _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu