On Tue, Jul 08 2014 at 9:31:52 am BST, wanghaibin <wanghaibin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2014/6/19 17:45, Andre Przywara wrote:
>
>> Some GICv3 registers can and will be accessed as 64 bit registers.
>> Currently the register handling code can only deal with 32 bit
>> accesses, so we do two consecutive calls to cover this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
>> index 4c6b212..b3cf4c7 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
>> @@ -906,6 +906,48 @@ static bool vgic_validate_access(const struct
>> vgic_dist *dist,
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> + * Call the respective handler function for the given range.
>> + * We split up any 64 bit accesses into two consecutive 32 bit
>> + * handler calls and merge the result afterwards.
>> + */
>> +static bool call_range_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> + struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio,
>> + unsigned long offset,
>> + const struct mmio_range *range)
>> +{
>> + u32 *data32 = (void *)mmio->data;
>> + struct kvm_exit_mmio mmio32;
>> + bool ret;
>> +
>> + if (likely(mmio->len <= 4))
>> + return range->handle_mmio(vcpu, mmio, offset);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * We assume that any access greater than 4 bytes is actually
>> + * 8 bytes long, caused by a 64-bit access
>> + */
>> +
>> + mmio32.len = 4;
>> + mmio32.is_write = mmio->is_write;
>> +
>> + mmio32.phys_addr = mmio->phys_addr + 4;
>> + if (mmio->is_write)
>> + *(u32 *)mmio32.data = data32[1];
>> + ret = range->handle_mmio(vcpu, &mmio32, offset + 4);
>> + if (!mmio->is_write)
>> + data32[1] = *(u32 *)mmio32.data;
>> +
>> + mmio32.phys_addr = mmio->phys_addr;
>> + if (mmio->is_write)
>> + *(u32 *)mmio32.data = data32[0];
>> + ret |= range->handle_mmio(vcpu, &mmio32, offset);
>> + if (!mmio->is_write)
>> + data32[0] = *(u32 *)mmio32.data;
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>
>
> It seems that this func will treat (the mmio->len >=4) as same as
> (mmio->len == 8).
> About VGIC_v2 module, it will be access successful that guest does
> (ldrb r0, [r1, #5], remember the GICD_CFG access BUG? you show this
> example to me),
I don't get it. What you describe is a byte access, and will be handled
right at the beginning of the function.
> there is no need the offset align and no need mmio->len == 4.
>
> Obviously, the 64-bits reg access func has many limits(Though I still
> think that guest will guarantee the offset align) :) .
We don't trust the guest. Ever.
>> +
>> +/*
>> * vgic_handle_mmio_range - handle an in-kernel MMIO access
>> * @vcpu: pointer to the vcpu performing the access
>> * @run: pointer to the kvm_run structure
>> @@ -936,10 +978,10 @@ static bool vgic_handle_mmio_range(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
>> spin_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.lock);
>> offset -= range->base;
>> if (vgic_validate_access(dist, range, offset)) {
>> - updated_state = range->handle_mmio(vcpu, mmio, offset);
>> + updated_state = call_range_handler(vcpu, mmio, offset, range);
>> } else {
>> - vgic_reg_access(mmio, NULL, offset,
>> - ACCESS_READ_RAZ | ACCESS_WRITE_IGNORED);
>
>
> Likely, and we hope that the VM access VGIC is validate, but there
> maybe something wrong bring on this branch (at present,only irq >=
> dist->nr_irqs ) for VGIC invalidate access,
> So I think there only READ_RAZ and WRITE_IGNORED may be not enough,
> think that, VM may get the irq' attr and the irq is overlap, and the
> VGIC will return a 0 to VM, and without
> any warning info.
> Maybe there need some warning,or inject the abort to VM, and so on.
I suggest you read the GICv2 spec: "A register bit corresponding to an
unimplemented interrupt is RAZ/WI".
>> + if (!mmio->is_write)
>> + memset(mmio->data, 0, mmio->len);
Now, this bit looks odd. Andre, why do you change this to a memset? It
will break a BE setup, and vgic_reg_access should abstract that nicely
already (at least with Victor's patches).
>> updated_state = false;
>> }
>> spin_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.lock);
>
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
