On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 12:37:23AM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 12:24:20AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2022, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 11:57:27PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/page_fault_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/page_fault_test.c
> > > > > index 92d3a91153b6..95d22cfb7b41 100644
> > > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/page_fault_test.c
> > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/page_fault_test.c
> > > > > @@ -609,8 +609,13 @@ static void setup_memslots(struct kvm_vm *vm, struct test_params *p)
> > > > > data_size / guest_page_size,
> > > > > p->test_desc->data_memslot_flags);
> > > > > vm->memslots[MEM_REGION_TEST_DATA] = TEST_DATA_MEMSLOT;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static void setup_ucall(struct kvm_vm *vm)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct userspace_mem_region *region = vm_get_mem_region(vm, MEM_REGION_TEST_DATA);
> > > > >
> > > > > - ucall_init(vm, data_gpa + data_size);
> > > > > + ucall_init(vm, region->region.guest_phys_addr + region->region.memory_size);
> > > >
> > > > Isn't there a hole after CODE_AND_DATA_MEMSLOT? I.e. after memslot 0?
> > >
> > > Sure, but that's only guaranteed in the PA space.
> > >
> > > > The reason
> > > > I ask is because if so, then we can do the temporarily heinous, but hopefully forward
> > > > looking thing of adding a helper to wrap kvm_vm_elf_load() + ucall_init().
> > > >
> > > > E.g. I think we can do this immediately, and then at some point in the 6.2 cycle
> > > > add a dedicated region+memslot for the ucall MMIO page.
> > >
> > > Even still, that's just a kludge to make ucalls work. We have other
> > > MMIO devices (GIC distributor, for example) that work by chance since
> > > nothing conflicts with the constant GPAs we've selected in the tests.
> > >
> > > I'd rather we go down the route of having an address allocator for the
> > > for both the VA and PA spaces to provide carveouts at runtime.
> >
> > Aren't those two separate issues? The PA, a.k.a. memslots space, can be solved
> > by allocating a dedicated memslot, i.e. doesn't need a carve. At worst, collisions
> > will yield very explicit asserts, which IMO is better than whatever might go wrong
> > with a carve out.
>
> Perhaps the use of the term 'carveout' wasn't right here.
>
> What I'm suggesting is we cannot rely on KVM memslots alone to act as an
> allocator for the PA space. KVM can provide devices to the guest that
> aren't represented as memslots. If we're trying to fix PA allocations
> anyway, why not make it generic enough to suit the needs of things
> beyond ucalls?
One extra bit of information: in arm, IO is any access to an address (within
bounds) not backed by a memslot. Not the same as x86 where MMIO are writes to
read-only memslots. No idea what other arches do.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Oliver
I think that we should use these proposed changes, and then move to an ideal
solution. These are the changes I propose:
1. add an arch specific API for allocating MMIO physical ranges:
vm_arch_mmio_region_add(vm, npages). The x86 version creates a read-only
memslot, and the arm one allocates physical space without a memslot in it.
2. Then change all IO related users (including ucall) to use
vm_arch_mmio_region_add(). Ex:
pa = vm_arch_mmio_region_add(vm, npages);
ucall_init(vm, pa);
page_fault_test needs to be adapted to use vm_arch_mmio_region_add() as well.
Thanks,
Ricardo
