[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 1/2] x86/mm: Add mem access rights to NPT
On Mi, 2018-05-30 at 14:56 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 30/05/18 12:29, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 30.05.18 at 13:20, <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mi, 2018-05-30 at 03:52 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 30.05.18 at 11:04, <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Sorry for the misunderstanding, I wanted to clarify if the > > > > > 59:56 > > > > > bits > > > > > are fully ok to be used or if not then where should I use 4 > > > > > bits to > > > > > store the mem access info? > > > > I thought I had sufficiently explained this - you have two > > > > options: > > > > 1) Make sure (via some prereq patch(es)) bit 59 has no other > > > > use, and > > > > then use 59:56. > > > > 2) Use another range that's provably having no other use, e.g. > > > > 58:55. > > > I've checked and bits 40:52 are defined in asm/page.h for page > > > flags. > > 40:52? Hardly. > > > > > > > > I've tried bits 53:56 and there where some problems with the > > > guest not > > > starting or the image freezing, > > Well, you'll have to explain this (perhaps just to yourself). > > > > > > > > bits 62 and 63 are not free so 59:56 is > > > the only space to be used for this purpose and is seems to > > > function > > > correctly. > > Well - as said before, bit 59 is not available for use without some > > prereq work. > There are no software available bits in the top of an AMD IOMMU PTE. > Bits 59:62 are defined, while bits 52:58 are strictly reserved and > fault > if used. > > I'm also not convinced of the safety of our current uses of bits 9:11 > which are software available in the regular pagetables, but have > specific meaning in the IOMMU entries. > > If the code IOMMU code disables page sharing, then lets go one small > step further and prohibit its use entirely. There is no point trying > to > maintain compatibility for an option which isn't used, especially if > it > gets in the way of improvements like this in the SVM code. > Another idea is to save the mem access info in a radix tree like on the ARM side and we can store the radix tree root in the p2m_domain. I think that this is the fastest and cleanest way to solve the free bits problem. Is this a suitable way to go? Thanks, Alex ________________________ This email was scanned by Bitdefender _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |