Re: [Xen-devel] [v7][RFC][PATCH 08/13] xen/x86/p2m: set p2m_access_n for reserved device memory mapping

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2014/10/31 16:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 31.10.14 at 03:50, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2014/10/30 17:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 30.10.14 at 08:39, <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 2014/10/29 17:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > Getting closer. Just set a to p2m->default_access before the if(),
> > > > > and overwrite it when rc == 1 inside the if(). And properly handle
> > > > > the error case (just logging a message - which btw lacks a proper
> > > > > XENLOG_G_* prefix - doesn't seem enough to me).
> > > > Please check the follows:
> > > >
> > > > @@ -686,8 +686,22 @@ guest_physmap_add_entry(struct domain *d, unsigned long 
> > > > gfn,
> > > >         /* Now, actually do the two-way mapping */
> > > >         if ( mfn_valid(_mfn(mfn)) )
> > > >         {
> > > > -        rc = p2m_set_entry(p2m, gfn, _mfn(mfn), page_order, t,
> > > > -                           p2m->default_access);
> > > > +        rc = 0;
> > > > +        a =  p2m->default_access;
> > > > +        if ( !is_hardware_domain(d) )
> > > > +        {
> > > > +            rc = 
> > > > iommu_get_reserved_device_memory(p2m_check_reserved_device_memory,
> > > > +                                                  &gfn);
> > > > +            /* We need to set reserved device memory as p2m_access_n. */
> > > > +            if ( rc == 1 )
> > > > +                a = p2m_access_n;
> > > > +            else if ( rc < 0 )
> > > > +                printk(XENLOG_WARNING
> > > > +                       "Domain %d can't check reserved device memory.\n",
> > > > +                       d->domain_id);
> > > > +        }
> > > > +
> > > > +        rc = p2m_set_entry(p2m, gfn, _mfn(mfn), page_order, t, a);
> > > >             if ( rc )
> > > >                 goto out; /* Failed to update p2m, bail without updating m2p.
> > */
> > > The handling of "a" looks good now, but the error handling and
> > > logging is still as broken as it was before.
> > Do you mean I'm missing some necessary info? Like gfn and mfn, so domain
> > id, gfn and mfn can show enough message.
> >
> > Sorry I'm poor to understand what you expect.
> But I explained it already, and that explanation is still visible in
> the quotes above. But to avoid any doubt, I'll repeat: "And
I tried to understand what you said but felt a confusion so ask if you 
show me directly.
> properly handle the error case (just logging a message - which
> btw lacks a proper XENLOG_G_* prefix - doesn't seem enough
> to me)."
Looks there are two problems:

#1: the error message

If current line is not fine,
	printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING "Domain %d can't check reserved device 
memory.\n", d->domain_id);
I mean could you change this directly.

#2 the error handling

In an error case what should I do? Currently we still create these 
mapping as normal. This means these mfns will be valid so later we can't 
set them again then device can't be assigned as passthrough. I think 
this makes sense. Or we should just stop them from setting 1:1 mapping?
> > > > > But then again this code may change altogether if you avoid
> > > > > populating the reserved regions in the first place.
> > > > Are you saying this scenario?
> > > >
> > > > #1 Here we first set these ranges as p2m_access_n
> > > > #2 We reset them as 1:1 RMRR mapping with p2m_access_rw somewhere
> > > > #3 Someone may try to populate these ranges again
> > > No. I pointed at the fact that if you avoid populating the holes,
> > > there's no need to force them to p2m_access_n. Any attempts
> > > to map other than the 1:1 thing there could then simply be
> > > rejected.
> > I think any population should be rejected totally, because 1:1 mapping
> > means guest can access these RMRR ranges in case of no any device
> > assignment with RMRR, right? Any access to these range corrupt the real
> > device usage.
> Oh yes, of course I implied that the 1:1 mapping would be
> permitted only for those ranges where the RMRR corresponds
> to a device the guest got assigned.
Yeah.

Tim,

Please take a look at this, and I hope this can make sure we'll be the 
same page finally :)
Thanks
Tiejun

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel