All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Paul Durrant <paul@xen.org>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] x86: detect CMOS aliasing on ports other than 0x70/0x71
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 13:09:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZCqz0YCFUifIlthC@Air-de-Roger> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8f2fa47d-89b7-b39c-e60f-edee1de5ca82@suse.com>

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:40:38PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> ... in order to also intercept Dom0 accesses through the alias ports.
> 
> Also stop intercepting accesses to the CMOS ports if we won't ourselves
> use the CMOS RTC, because of there being none.

So it's fine for dom0 to switch off NMIs if Xen isn't using the RTC?
Seems like a weird side-effect of Xen not using the RTC (seeing as we
would otherwise mask bit 8 from dom0 RTC accesses).

Also I'm worried that when Xen doesn't intercept RTC ports accesses
from dom0 could be interrupted for example by the vCPU being scheduled
out, so a vCPU might perform a write to the index port, and be
scheduled out, leaving the RTC in an undefined state.

I've read claims online that the RTC is not reset by the firmware, and
since it has a battery the state is kept across reboots, so
interrupting an access like that cold leave the RTC in a broken state
across reboots.

> Note that rtc_init() deliberately uses 16 as the upper loop bound,
> despite probe_cmos_alias() using 8: The higher bound is benign now, but
> would save us touching the code (or, worse, missing to touch it) in case
> the lower one was doubled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> ---
> v5: Simplify logic in is_cmos_port(). Limit the scope of a local
>     variable. Adjust a comment that's being moved.
> v4: Also conditionally mask top bit for guest index port accesses. Add
>     missing adjustments to rtc_init(). Re-work to avoid recursive
>     read_lock(). Also adjust guest_io_{read,write}(). Re-base.
> v3: Re-base over change to earlier patch.
> v2: Re-base.
> 
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/rtc.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/rtc.c
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
>  #include <asm/hvm/vpt.h>
>  #include <asm/hvm/io.h>
>  #include <asm/hvm/save.h>
> -#include <asm/current.h>
> +#include <asm/iocap.h>
>  #include <xen/trace.h>
>  #include <public/hvm/params.h>
>  
> @@ -836,10 +836,18 @@ void rtc_init(struct domain *d)
>  
>      if ( !has_vrtc(d) )
>      {
> -        if ( is_hardware_domain(d) )
> -            /* Hardware domain gets mediated access to the physical RTC. */
> -            register_portio_handler(d, RTC_PORT(0), 2, hw_rtc_io);
> -        return;
> +        unsigned int port;
> +
> +        if ( !is_hardware_domain(d) )
> +            return;
> +
> +        /*
> +         * Hardware domain gets mediated access to the physical RTC/CMOS (of
> +         * course unless we don't use it ourselves, for there being none).
> +         */
> +        for ( port = RTC_PORT(0); port < RTC_PORT(0) + 0x10; port += 2 )
> +            if ( is_cmos_port(port, 2, d) )
> +                register_portio_handler(d, port, 2, hw_rtc_io);

You seem to have dropped a return from here, as for PVH dom0 the
initialization below shouldn't be done.

>      }
>  
>      spin_lock_init(&s->lock);
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/mc146818rtc.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/mc146818rtc.h
> @@ -9,6 +9,10 @@
>  
>  extern spinlock_t rtc_lock;             /* serialize CMOS RAM access */
>  
> +struct domain;
> +bool is_cmos_port(unsigned int port, unsigned int bytes,
> +                  const struct domain *d);
> +
>  /**********************************************************************
>   * register summary
>   **********************************************************************/
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c
> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static bool admin_io_okay(unsigned int p
>          return false;
>  
>      /* We also never permit direct access to the RTC/CMOS registers. */
> -    if ( port <= RTC_PORT(1) && port + bytes > RTC_PORT(0) )
> +    if ( is_cmos_port(port, bytes, d) )
>          return false;
>  
>      return ioports_access_permitted(d, port, port + bytes - 1);
> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static uint32_t guest_io_read(unsigned i
>          {
>              sub_data = pv_pit_handler(port, 0, 0);
>          }
> -        else if ( port == RTC_PORT(0) || port == RTC_PORT(1) )
> +        else if ( is_cmos_port(port, 1, currd) )
>          {
>              sub_data = rtc_guest_read(port);
>          }
> @@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ static void guest_io_write(unsigned int
>          {
>              pv_pit_handler(port, (uint8_t)data, 1);
>          }
> -        else if ( port == RTC_PORT(0) || port == RTC_PORT(1) )
> +        else if ( is_cmos_port(port, 1, currd) )
>          {
>              rtc_guest_write(port, data);
>          }
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c
> @@ -2131,37 +2131,36 @@ int __hwdom_init xen_in_range(unsigned l
>  static int __hwdom_init cf_check io_bitmap_cb(
>      unsigned long s, unsigned long e, void *ctx)
>  {
> -    struct domain *d = ctx;
> +    const struct domain *d = ctx;
>      unsigned int i;
>  
>      ASSERT(e <= INT_MAX);
>      for ( i = s; i <= e; i++ )
> -        __clear_bit(i, d->arch.hvm.io_bitmap);
> +        /*
> +         * Accesses to RTC ports also need to be trapped in order to keep
> +         * consistency with hypervisor accesses.
> +         */
> +        if ( !is_cmos_port(i, 1, d) )
> +            __clear_bit(i, d->arch.hvm.io_bitmap);
>  
>      return 0;
>  }
>  
>  void __hwdom_init setup_io_bitmap(struct domain *d)
>  {
> -    int rc;
> +    if ( !is_hvm_domain(d) )
> +        return;
>  
> -    if ( is_hvm_domain(d) )
> -    {
> -        bitmap_fill(d->arch.hvm.io_bitmap, 0x10000);
> -        rc = rangeset_report_ranges(d->arch.ioport_caps, 0, 0x10000,
> -                                    io_bitmap_cb, d);
> -        BUG_ON(rc);
> -        /*
> -         * NB: we need to trap accesses to 0xcf8 in order to intercept
> -         * 4 byte accesses, that need to be handled by Xen in order to
> -         * keep consistency.
> -         * Access to 1 byte RTC ports also needs to be trapped in order
> -         * to keep consistency with PV.
> -         */
> -        __set_bit(0xcf8, d->arch.hvm.io_bitmap);
> -        __set_bit(RTC_PORT(0), d->arch.hvm.io_bitmap);
> -        __set_bit(RTC_PORT(1), d->arch.hvm.io_bitmap);
> -    }
> +    bitmap_fill(d->arch.hvm.io_bitmap, 0x10000);
> +    if ( rangeset_report_ranges(d->arch.ioport_caps, 0, 0x10000,
> +                                io_bitmap_cb, d) )
> +        BUG();
> +
> +    /*
> +     * We need to trap 4-byte accesses to 0xcf8 (see admin_io_okay(),
> +     * guest_io_read(), and guest_io_write()).
> +     */
> +    __set_bit(0xcf8, d->arch.hvm.io_bitmap);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/time.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/time.c
> @@ -1234,7 +1234,10 @@ static unsigned long get_cmos_time(void)
>          if ( seconds < 60 )
>          {
>              if ( rtc.sec != seconds )
> +            {
>                  cmos_rtc_probe = false;
> +                acpi_gbl_FADT.boot_flags &= ~ACPI_FADT_NO_CMOS_RTC;
> +            }
>              break;
>          }
>  
> @@ -1249,6 +1252,77 @@ static unsigned long get_cmos_time(void)
>      return mktime(rtc.year, rtc.mon, rtc.day, rtc.hour, rtc.min, rtc.sec);
>  }
>  
> +static unsigned int __ro_after_init cmos_alias_mask;
> +
> +static int __init cf_check probe_cmos_alias(void)
> +{
> +    unsigned int offs;
> +
> +    if ( acpi_gbl_FADT.boot_flags & ACPI_FADT_NO_CMOS_RTC )
> +        return 0;
> +
> +    for ( offs = 2; offs < 8; offs <<= 1 )
> +    {
> +        unsigned int i;
> +        bool read = true;
> +
> +        for ( i = RTC_REG_D + 1; i < 0x80; ++i )
> +        {
> +            uint8_t normal, alt;
> +            unsigned long flags;
> +
> +            if ( i == acpi_gbl_FADT.century )
> +                continue;
> +
> +            spin_lock_irqsave(&rtc_lock, flags);
> +
> +            normal = CMOS_READ(i);
> +            if ( inb(RTC_PORT(offs)) != i )
> +                read = false;
> +
> +            alt = inb(RTC_PORT(offs + 1));
> +
> +            spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtc_lock, flags);
> +
> +            if ( normal != alt )
> +                break;
> +
> +            process_pending_softirqs();
> +        }
> +        if ( i == 0x80 )
> +        {
> +            cmos_alias_mask |= offs;
> +            printk(XENLOG_INFO "CMOS aliased at %02x, index %s\n",
> +                   RTC_PORT(offs), read ? "r/w" : "w/o");

I would consider making this a DEBUG message, not sure it's that
useful for a normal end user, and printing to the console can be slow.

> +        }
> +    }
> +
> +    return 0;
> +}
> +__initcall(probe_cmos_alias);
> +
> +bool is_cmos_port(unsigned int port, unsigned int bytes, const struct domain *d)
> +{
> +    unsigned int offs;
> +
> +    if ( !is_hardware_domain(d) ||
> +         !(acpi_gbl_FADT.boot_flags & ACPI_FADT_NO_CMOS_RTC) )
> +        return port <= RTC_PORT(1) && port + bytes > RTC_PORT(0);
> +
> +    if ( acpi_gbl_FADT.boot_flags & ACPI_FADT_NO_CMOS_RTC )
> +        return false;
> +
> +    for ( offs = 2; offs <= cmos_alias_mask; offs <<= 1 )
> +    {
> +        if ( !(offs & cmos_alias_mask) )
> +            continue;
> +        if ( port <= RTC_PORT(offs | 1) && port + bytes > RTC_PORT(offs) )
> +            return true;
> +    }

Maybe I'm confused, but doesn't this loop start at RTC_PORT(2), and
hence you need to check for the RTC_PORT(0,1) pair outside of the
loop?

> +
> +    return false;
> +}
> +
>  /* Helpers for guest accesses to the physical RTC. */
>  unsigned int rtc_guest_read(unsigned int port)
>  {
> @@ -1256,23 +1330,25 @@ unsigned int rtc_guest_read(unsigned int
>      unsigned long flags;
>      unsigned int data = ~0;
>  
> -    switch ( port )
> +    switch ( port & ~cmos_alias_mask )

Given that the call is gated with is_cmos_port() it would be clearer
to just use RTC_PORT(1) as the mask here IMO.

Thanks, Roger.


  reply	other threads:[~2023-04-03 11:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-15 11:54 [PATCH v3 0/2] x86: RTC handling adjustments Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 11:56 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] x86: restore pv_rtc_handler() invocation Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 12:13   ` Roger Pau Monné
2020-07-15 12:36     ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 13:32       ` Roger Pau Monné
2020-07-15 13:51         ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 14:51           ` Roger Pau Monné
2020-07-16 10:06             ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-16 10:31               ` Roger Pau Monné
2020-07-16 10:52                 ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-20 15:28               ` Andrew Cooper
2020-07-20 16:27                 ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-21  6:36                   ` Jan Beulich
2020-07-15 12:31   ` Paul Durrant
2020-07-15 11:57 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] x86: detect CMOS aliasing on ports other than 0x70/0x71 Jan Beulich
2020-07-20 11:11   ` Roger Pau Monné
2023-03-17 16:12     ` Roger Pau Monné
2023-03-20  8:32 ` [PATCH v4] " Jan Beulich
2023-03-21 14:12   ` Roger Pau Monné
2023-03-22  9:55     ` Jan Beulich
2023-03-23 12:29       ` Roger Pau Monné
2023-03-23 14:26         ` Jan Beulich
2023-03-27 15:44     ` Jan Beulich
2023-03-23 14:49   ` Roger Pau Monné
2023-03-23 16:08     ` Jan Beulich
2023-03-23 16:40       ` Roger Pau Monné
2023-03-27 15:46         ` Jan Beulich
2023-03-27 15:44     ` Jan Beulich
2023-03-30 10:40 ` [PATCH v5] " Jan Beulich
2023-04-03 11:09   ` Roger Pau Monné [this message]
2023-04-03 11:26     ` Jan Beulich
2023-04-03 11:44       ` Roger Pau Monné
2023-04-03 12:24         ` Jan Beulich
2023-04-18  9:24 ` [PATCH v6] " Jan Beulich
2023-04-18 11:35   ` Roger Pau Monné
2023-04-19  7:56     ` Jan Beulich
2023-04-19 10:45       ` Roger Pau Monné
2023-04-19 13:58     ` Jan Beulich
2023-04-19 15:55       ` Roger Pau Monné
2023-04-20  8:31         ` Jan Beulich
2023-04-20 14:31           ` Roger Pau Monné
2023-04-20 14:55             ` Jan Beulich

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ZCqz0YCFUifIlthC@Air-de-Roger \
    --to=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=paul@xen.org \
    --cc=wl@xen.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.