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=-15.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 E454CC4361B for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:07:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (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 37BD923B2F for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:07:55 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 37BD923B2F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:58342 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kqJEP-0001R9-TS for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:07:53 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55326) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kqJCL-0008Ce-T9; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:05:45 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:44122) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kqJCJ-0005G6-Pw; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:05:45 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BIH31ls094373; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:05:41 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=9ctMASSg9CtJ1xsUZk4yf5JjylW17B5j/HtEixgvTB4=; b=mGmsHbpqNdx2FDZyUlDJcUdFPztgQ3uS5/HgICJCMwNa5uD1+OnvMeS4UdfnVoJPHBos 6s8IcWNrl7ngBhA7DkLpFnMR+BTOEKLz139AR+XyhhHnn9RbNzBp/d4aUfz/pY9KMbgH F6bIld4GIW/Vzh98FGuZOAiUQ4DpZZBMi/YWY0KbHEI6C7x8hkRSThG0xvPsxRokQGV3 qpwnRs8i8jInwC3FDMZq6cOlGGp26waUwZ5Ig8pX5D2u+mPrG0Xvptp5U3MTmdqN4qsw 3TL3zGNnvrzO00S0F+7TE4IlRWh6+4gei+fyJ3B8cX2UlY7HIKQjgOz2U+SL8/uHJSBS vQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35gy2sjvnk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:05:40 -0500 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 0BIH360Z094837; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:05:40 -0500 Received: from ppma05fra.de.ibm.com (6c.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.108]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 35gy2sjvm0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 12:05:39 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma05fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma05fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BIGnE5w013096; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:05:37 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma05fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 35fmywh3xa-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:05:37 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 0BIH5YMZ35979726 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:05:34 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B2211C04C; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:05:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98B511C058; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:05:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc3016276355.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.46.39]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:05:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] s390x/pci: Fix memory_region_access_valid call To: Cornelia Huck References: <1608243397-29428-1-git-send-email-mjrosato@linux.ibm.com> <1608243397-29428-3-git-send-email-mjrosato@linux.ibm.com> <72f4e03f-7208-6af0-4cd2-9715d9f9ec77@linux.ibm.com> <20201218120440.36b56e80.cohuck@redhat.com> <2c5a2ccb-dbe1-f355-3980-462be1d93942@linux.ibm.com> <20201218163206.7b8efa2a.cohuck@redhat.com> <52c93c12-b9a4-99ba-186c-4db2e6267b9f@linux.ibm.com> <20201218175119.5f43b378.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Pierre Morel Message-ID: <608f9aff-965f-62ee-6034-c61f98213200@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 18:05:33 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201218175119.5f43b378.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-18_10:2020-12-18, 2020-12-18 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012180115 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=148.163.156.1; envelope-from=pmorel@linux.ibm.com; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com X-Spam_score_int: -26 X-Spam_score: -2.7 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: thuth@redhat.com, Matthew Rosato , david@redhat.com, richard.henderson@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pasic@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 12/18/20 5:51 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 17:40:50 +0100 > Pierre Morel wrote: > >> On 12/18/20 4:32 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 15:32:08 +0100 >>> Pierre Morel wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/18/20 12:04 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:37:38 +0100 >>>>> Pierre Morel wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 12/17/20 11:16 PM, Matthew Rosato wrote: >>>>>>> In pcistb_service_handler, a call is made to validate that the memory >>>>>>> region can be accessed. However, the call is made using the entire length >>>>>>> of the pcistb operation, which can be larger than the allowed memory >>>>>>> access size (8). Since we already know that the provided buffer is a >>>>>>> multiple of 8, fix the call to memory_region_access_valid to iterate >>>>>>> over the memory region in the same way as the subsequent call to >>>>>>> memory_region_dispatch_write. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixes: 863f6f52b7 ("s390: implement pci instructions") >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c | 10 ++++++---- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c >>>>>>> index e230293..76b08a3 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c >>>>>>> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c >>>>>>> @@ -821,10 +821,12 @@ int pcistb_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, uint8_t r1, uint8_t r3, uint64_t gaddr, >>>>>>> mr = s390_get_subregion(mr, offset, len); >>>>>>> offset -= mr->addr; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - if (!memory_region_access_valid(mr, offset, len, true, >>>>>>> - MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED)) { >>>>>>> - s390_program_interrupt(env, PGM_OPERAND, ra); >>>>>>> - return 0; >>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < len; i += 8) { >>>>>>> + if (!memory_region_access_valid(mr, offset + i, 8, true, >>>>>>> + MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED)) { >>>>>>> + s390_program_interrupt(env, PGM_OPERAND, ra); >>>>>>> + return 0; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> if (s390_cpu_virt_mem_read(cpu, gaddr, ar, buffer, len)) { >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> wouldn't it be made automatically by defining the io_region >>>>>> max_access_size when reading the bars in clp_service_call? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But that's already what is happening, isn't it? The access check is >>>>> done for a size that is potentially too large, while the actual access >>>>> will happen in chunks of 8? I think that this patch is correct. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry I was too rapid and half wrong in my writing I was also not >>>> specific enough. >>>> >>>> In MemoryRegionOps we have a field valid with a callback accepts(). >>>> >>>> I was wondering if doing the check in the accept() callback which is >>>> called by the memory_region_access_valid() function and then using >>>> max_access_size would not be cleaner. >>>> >>>> Note that it does not change a lot but only where the check is done. >>> >>> But where would we add those ops? My understanding is that pcistb acts >>> on whatever region the device provided, and that differs from device to >>> device? >>> >>> >> >> The ops already exist, I thought adding a dedicated callback for s390 on >> every regions used by vfio_pci instead of the default. >> But it does not add a lot, just looks cleaner to me. > > But we end up here for every pci device, not just for vfio devices, > don't we? > > Yes, but isn't what is done here? -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen