[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] x86/dom0: be less restrictive with the Interrupt Address Range


  • To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 17:05:44 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:05:55 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 20.02.2025 16:40, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 02:30:38PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 20.02.2025 09:55, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 09:33:46AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 19.02.2025 17:48, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>>>> Note that the restriction to map the local APIC page is enforced
>>>>> separately, and that continues to be present.  Additionally make sure the
>>>>> emulated local APIC page is also not mapped, in case dom0 is using it.
>>>>
>>>> But that's in GFN space, not in MFN one. Why would that matter for 
>>>> iomem_caps?
>>>
>>> It's required to avoid arch_iommu_hwdom_init() creating an identity
>>> mapping for APIC_DEFAULT_PHYS_BASE, which would prevent the local APIC
>>> emulation from being used.
>>
>> Hmm, yes, on one hand such a mapping would be created by default, as we
>> default to "dom0-iommu=map-reserved". Otoh that mapping would be replaced
>> before Dom0 is actually started, via the domain_creation_finished() hook.
>> On (modern) VMX that is. So yes, on old VMX and on SVM the slot would need
>> to remain unpopulated. Otoh, when the physical LAPICs are elsewhere and
>> when the domain is in x2APIC mode, there would be no reason to disallow
>> Dom0 access to that page.
> 
> Right, but that's now how dom0 is started ATM, as the local APIC is
> unconditionally started in xAPIC mode and at APIC_DEFAULT_PHYS_BASE.
> 
> I could use vlapic_base_address() against vCPU#0 vlapic, but even in
> guest_wrmsr_apic_base() we don't allow moving the local APIC MMIO
> region, and hence I assumed it was fine to just use
> APIC_DEFAULT_PHYS_BASE here.  Note in pvh_setup_acpi_madt() Xen also
> hardcodes the local APIC address to APIC_DEFAULT_PHYS_BASE.
> 
> Would you be fine if I expand the comment so it's:
> 
>     /* If using an emulated local APIC make sure its MMIO is unpopulated. */
>     if ( has_vlapic(d) )
>     {
>         /* Xen doesn't allow changing the local APIC MMIO window position. */
>         mfn = paddr_to_pfn(APIC_DEFAULT_PHYS_BASE);
>         rc |= iomem_deny_access(d, mfn, mfn);
>     }

That will do, I think. Then:
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

>> That would apparently mean fiddling with
>> iomem_caps once all vCPU-s have entered x2APIC mode.
> 
> Urg, that seems ugly.  It would also need undoing if the APICs are
> reverted to xAPIC mode?

Right.

>> With LAPICs not
>> normally being elsewhere, question is whether this corner case actually
>> needs dealing with. Yet even if not, commentary may want extending, just
>> to make clear the case was considered?
> 
> As said above, for both HVM and PVH Xen doesn't allow moving the APIC
> MMIO window to anything different than APIC_DEFAULT_PHYS_BASE.

I was talking about the real one Xen uses.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.