KVM Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
To: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, nikos.nikoleris@arm.com,
	andre.przywara@arm.com, eric.auger@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 5/8] arm/arm64: mmu: Remove memory layout assumptions
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:09:07 +0100
Message-ID: <0ca4cb4e-476e-93d7-ee7b-d0b241f5fb55@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210415171105.iy66cbyzntzrcdlp@kamzik.brq.redhat.com>

Hi Drew,

On 4/15/21 6:11 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 04:48:41PM +0100, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>> Hi Drew,
>>
>> On 4/7/21 7:59 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
>>> Rather than making too many assumptions about the memory layout
>>> in mmu code, just set up the page tables per the memory regions
>>> (which means putting all the memory layout assumptions in setup).
>>> To ensure we get the right default flags set we need to split the
>>> primary region into two regions for code and data.
>>>
>>> We still only expect the primary regions to be present, but the
>>> next patch will remove that assumption too.
>> Nitpick, but we still make assumptions about the memory layout:
>>
>> - In setup_mmu(), we limit the maximum linear address to 3GiB, but on arm64 we can
>> have memory starting well above that.
> True. I need to try and improve that (at least the comment in setup_mmu).
> For now, I may just call out that we still assume 3G-4G is available for
> our vmalloc region.
>
>> - In mem_init(), we still have the predefined I/O regions.
> The commit message points this out. Also, the commit summary specifies
> 'mmu' for the component from which we're removing the assumptions.

You're right, I have managed to miss that.

>
>> I don't know if this is a rebasing error or intentional. If it's intentional, I
>> think it should be mentioned in the commit message, if only to say they will be
>> removed in a later patch (like you do with the primary region).
> We never remove all assumptions from mem setup in setup.c. We just make it
> easier to bypass.

Yes, same as above, I missed the fact that this commit targets only setup_mmu(),
sorry for the noise.

>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  lib/arm/asm/setup.h |  1 +
>>>  lib/arm/mmu.c       | 26 +++++++++++++++-----------
>>>  lib/arm/setup.c     | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
>>>  3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/arm/asm/setup.h b/lib/arm/asm/setup.h
>>> index c8afb2493f8d..210c14f818fb 100644
>>> --- a/lib/arm/asm/setup.h
>>> +++ b/lib/arm/asm/setup.h
>>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ extern int nr_cpus;
>>>  
>>>  #define MR_F_PRIMARY		(1U << 0)
>>>  #define MR_F_IO			(1U << 1)
>>> +#define MR_F_CODE		(1U << 2)
>>>  #define MR_F_UNKNOWN		(1U << 31)
>>>  
>>>  struct mem_region {
>>> diff --git a/lib/arm/mmu.c b/lib/arm/mmu.c
>>> index a7b7ae51afe3..edd2b9da809b 100644
>>> --- a/lib/arm/mmu.c
>>> +++ b/lib/arm/mmu.c
>>> @@ -20,8 +20,6 @@
>>>  
>>>  #include <linux/compiler.h>
>>>  
>>> -extern unsigned long etext;
>>> -
>>>  #define MMU_MAX_PERSISTENT_MAPS 64
>>>  
>>>  struct mmu_persistent_map {
>>> @@ -208,7 +206,7 @@ void mmu_set_range_sect(pgd_t *pgtable, uintptr_t virt_offset,
>>>  
>>>  void *setup_mmu(phys_addr_t phys_end)
>>>  {
>>> -	uintptr_t code_end = (uintptr_t)&etext;
>>> +	struct mem_region *r;
>>>  
>>>  	/* 0G-1G = I/O, 1G-3G = identity, 3G-4G = vmalloc */
>>>  	if (phys_end > (3ul << 30))
>>> @@ -223,14 +221,20 @@ void *setup_mmu(phys_addr_t phys_end)
>>>  
>>>  	mmu_idmap = alloc_page();
>>>  
>>> -	/* armv8 requires code shared between EL1 and EL0 to be read-only */
>>> -	mmu_set_range_ptes(mmu_idmap, PHYS_OFFSET,
>>> -		PHYS_OFFSET, code_end,
>>> -		__pgprot(PTE_WBWA | PTE_RDONLY | PTE_USER));
>>> -
>>> -	mmu_set_range_ptes(mmu_idmap, code_end,
>>> -		code_end, phys_end,
>>> -		__pgprot(PTE_WBWA | PTE_USER));
>>> +	for (r = mem_regions; r->end; ++r) {
>>> +		if (r->flags & MR_F_IO) {
>>> +			continue;
>>> +		} else if (r->flags & MR_F_CODE) {
>>> +			assert_msg(r->flags & MR_F_PRIMARY, "Unexpected code region");
>>> +			/* armv8 requires code shared between EL1 and EL0 to be read-only */
>>> +			mmu_set_range_ptes(mmu_idmap, r->start, r->start, r->end,
>>> +					   __pgprot(PTE_WBWA | PTE_USER | PTE_RDONLY));
>>> +		} else {
>>> +			assert_msg(r->flags & MR_F_PRIMARY, "Unexpected data region");
>>> +			mmu_set_range_ptes(mmu_idmap, r->start, r->start, r->end,
>>> +					   __pgprot(PTE_WBWA | PTE_USER));
>>> +		}
>>> +	}
>> This looks good.
>>
>>>  
>>>  	mmu_set_persistent_maps(mmu_idmap);
>>>  
>>> diff --git a/lib/arm/setup.c b/lib/arm/setup.c
>>> index 9c16f6004e9f..9da5d24b0be9 100644
>>> --- a/lib/arm/setup.c
>>> +++ b/lib/arm/setup.c
>>> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
>>>  #define NR_INITIAL_MEM_REGIONS 16
>>>  
>>>  extern unsigned long stacktop;
>>> +extern unsigned long etext;
>>>  
>>>  struct timer_state __timer_state;
>>>  
>>> @@ -88,10 +89,12 @@ unsigned int mem_region_get_flags(phys_addr_t paddr)
>>>  
>>>  static void mem_init(phys_addr_t freemem_start)
>>>  {
>>> +	phys_addr_t code_end = (phys_addr_t)(unsigned long)&etext;
>>>  	struct dt_pbus_reg regs[NR_INITIAL_MEM_REGIONS];
>>> -	struct mem_region primary, mem = {
>>> +	struct mem_region mem = {
>>>  		.start = (phys_addr_t)-1,
>>>  	};
>>> +	struct mem_region *primary = NULL;
>>>  	phys_addr_t base, top;
>>>  	int nr_regs, nr_io = 0, i;
>>>  
>>> @@ -110,8 +113,6 @@ static void mem_init(phys_addr_t freemem_start)
>>>  	nr_regs = dt_get_memory_params(regs, NR_INITIAL_MEM_REGIONS - nr_io);
>>>  	assert(nr_regs > 0);
>>>  
>>> -	primary = (struct mem_region){ 0 };
>>> -
>>>  	for (i = 0; i < nr_regs; ++i) {
>>>  		struct mem_region *r = &mem_regions[nr_io + i];
>>>  
>>> @@ -123,7 +124,7 @@ static void mem_init(phys_addr_t freemem_start)
>>>  		 */
>>>  		if (freemem_start >= r->start && freemem_start < r->end) {
>>>  			r->flags |= MR_F_PRIMARY;
>> Here we mark mem_regions[nr_io + i] as primary...
>>
>>> -			primary = *r;
>>> +			primary = r;
>>>  		}
>>>  
>>>  		/*
>>> @@ -135,13 +136,18 @@ static void mem_init(phys_addr_t freemem_start)
>>>  		if (r->end > mem.end)
>>>  			mem.end = r->end;
>>>  	}
>>> -	assert(primary.end != 0);
>>> +	assert(primary);
>>>  	assert(!(mem.start & ~PHYS_MASK) && !((mem.end - 1) & ~PHYS_MASK));
>>>  
>>> -	__phys_offset = primary.start;	/* PHYS_OFFSET */
>>> -	__phys_end = primary.end;	/* PHYS_END */
>>> +	__phys_offset = primary->start;	/* PHYS_OFFSET */
>>> +	__phys_end = primary->end;	/* PHYS_END */
>>> +
>>> +	/* Split the primary region into two regions; code and data */
>>> +	mem.start = code_end, mem.end = primary->end, mem.flags = MR_F_PRIMARY;
>> Here we mark mem as primary...
> Right, mem is now 
>
>  {
>   .start = code_end,
>   .end = primary->end,
>   .flags = MR_F_PRIMARY
>  }
>
>>> +	mem_regions[nr_io + i] = mem;
>> And then we set mem_regions[nr_io + nr_regs] to mem, which I think means we can
>> end up with two primary memory regions. Am I missing something?
>>
>>> +	primary->end = code_end, primary->flags |= MR_F_CODE;
> And now primary is
>
>  {
>   .start = <the original primary start>,
>   .end = code_end,
>   .flags = MR_F_PRIMARY|MR_F_CODE,
>  }
>
> So there are two primary regions, one for data, one for code. Note, that
> we know code_end is within the boundaries of the old full primary region.
> All we did was split the region into two.

Yes, you are right, my reading comprehension seems to have taken a hit lately, I
misunderstood what the code is doing. The code looks fine, now that I hope I have
read it correctly. Will give it another thorough review after the assignment changes.

Thanks,

Alex

>
>> Please consider splitting the assignments each on its own line, because it makes
>> the code so hard to read (and I assume really easy to miss if we ever change
>> something).
> Sure
>
> Thanks,
> drew
>

  reply index

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-07 18:59 [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 0/8] arm/arm64: Prepare for target-efi Andrew Jones
2021-04-07 18:59 ` [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 1/8] arm/arm64: Reorganize cstart assembler Andrew Jones
2021-04-09 17:18   ` Nikos Nikoleris
2021-04-09 17:28     ` Andrew Jones
2021-04-13 16:34   ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-04-14  8:59     ` Andrew Jones
2021-04-14 15:15       ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-04-15 13:03         ` Andrew Jones
2021-04-07 18:59 ` [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 2/8] arm/arm64: Move setup_vm into setup Andrew Jones
2021-04-09 17:24   ` Nikos Nikoleris
2021-04-14 15:19   ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-04-07 18:59 ` [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 3/8] pci-testdev: ioremap regions Andrew Jones
2021-04-13 14:12   ` Nikos Nikoleris
2021-04-07 18:59 ` [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 4/8] arm/arm64: mmu: Stop mapping an assumed IO region Andrew Jones
2021-04-13 14:06   ` Nikos Nikoleris
2021-04-14 15:42   ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-04-15 13:09     ` Andrew Jones
2021-04-07 18:59 ` [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 5/8] arm/arm64: mmu: Remove memory layout assumptions Andrew Jones
2021-04-13 14:27   ` Nikos Nikoleris
2021-04-15 15:48   ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-04-15 17:11     ` Andrew Jones
2021-04-19 15:09       ` Alexandru Elisei [this message]
2021-04-07 18:59 ` [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 6/8] arm/arm64: setup: Consolidate " Andrew Jones
2021-04-13 16:41   ` Nikos Nikoleris
2021-04-14  9:03     ` Andrew Jones
2021-04-15 16:59   ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-04-15 17:25     ` Andrew Jones
2021-04-19 15:56       ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-04-19 15:59         ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-04-19 17:53         ` Andrew Jones
2021-04-07 18:59 ` [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 7/8] chr-testdev: Silently fail init Andrew Jones
2021-04-13 16:42   ` Nikos Nikoleris
2021-04-15 17:03   ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-04-07 18:59 ` [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 8/8] arm/arm64: psci: don't assume method is hvc Andrew Jones
2021-04-09 17:46   ` Nikos Nikoleris
2021-04-14  9:06     ` Andrew Jones
2021-04-19 16:33   ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-04-19 18:13     ` Andrew Jones

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=0ca4cb4e-476e-93d7-ee7b-d0b241f5fb55@arm.com \
    --to=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
    --cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
    --cc=drjones@redhat.com \
    --cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nikos.nikoleris@arm.com \
    /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

KVM Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/0 kvm/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 kvm kvm/ https://lore.kernel.org/kvm \
		kvm@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index kvm

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.kvm


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git