Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:12:45 -0600
From:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:	Yongji Xie <xyjxie@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, aik@...abs.ru, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	paulus@...ba.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, warrier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	gwshan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kevin.tian@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] vfio-pci: Allow to mmap sub-page MMIO BARs if the
 mmio page is exclusive

On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:06:37 +0800
Yongji Xie <xyjxie@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Current vfio-pci implementation disallows to mmap
> sub-page(size < PAGE_SIZE) MMIO BARs because these BARs' mmio
> page may be shared with other BARs. This will cause some
> performance issues when we passthrough a PCI device with
> this kind of BARs. Guest will be not able to handle the mmio
> accesses to the BARs which leads to mmio emulations in host.
> 
> However, not all sub-page BARs will share page with other BARs.
> We should allow to mmap the sub-page MMIO BARs which we can
> make sure will not share page with other BARs.
> 
> This patch adds support for this case. And we try to add a
> dummy resource to reserve the remainder of the page which
> hot-add device's BAR might be assigned into. But it's not
> necessary to handle the case when the BAR is not page aligned.
> Because we can't expect the BAR will be assigned into the same
> location in a page in guest when we passthrough the BAR. And
> it's hard to access this BAR in userspace because we have
> no way to get the BAR's location in a page.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <xyjxie@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c         |   87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h |    8 ++++
>  2 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> index 188b1ff..3cca2a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> @@ -110,6 +110,73 @@ static inline bool vfio_pci_is_vga(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>  	return (pdev->class >> 8) == PCI_CLASS_DISPLAY_VGA;
>  }
>  
> +static void vfio_pci_probe_mmaps(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev)
> +{
> +	struct resource *res;
> +	int bar;
> +	struct vfio_pci_dummy_resource *dummy_res;
> +
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vdev->dummy_resources_list);
> +
> +	for (bar = PCI_STD_RESOURCES; bar <= PCI_STD_RESOURCE_END; bar++) {
> +		res = vdev->pdev->resource + bar;
> +
> +		if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_MMAP))
> +			goto no_mmap;
> +
> +		if (!(res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM))
> +			goto no_mmap;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * The PCI core shouldn't set up a resource with a
> +		 * type but zero size. But there may be bugs that
> +		 * cause us to do that.
> +		 */
> +		if (!resource_size(res))
> +			goto no_mmap;
> +
> +		if (resource_size(res) >= PAGE_SIZE) {
> +			vdev->bar_mmap_supported[bar] = true;
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (!(res->start & ~PAGE_MASK)) {
> +			/*
> +			 * Add a dummy resource to reserve the remainder
> +			 * of the exclusive page in case that hot-add
> +			 * device's bar is assigned into it.
> +			 */
> +			dummy_res = kzalloc(sizeof(*dummy_res), GFP_KERNEL);
> +			if (dummy_res == NULL)
> +				goto no_mmap;
> +
> +			dummy_res->resource.start = res->end + 1;
> +			dummy_res->resource.end = res->start + PAGE_SIZE - 1;
> +			dummy_res->resource.flags = res->flags;
> +			if (request_resource(res->parent,
> +						&dummy_res->resource)) {
> +				kfree(dummy_res);
> +				goto no_mmap;
> +			}

Isn't it true that request_resource() only tells us that at a given
point in time, no other drivers have reserved that resource?  It seems
like it does not guarantee that the resource isn't routed to another
device or that another driver won't at some point attempt to request
that same resource.  So for example if a user constructs their initrd
to bind vfio-pci to devices before other modules load, this
request_resource() may succeed, at the expense of drivers loaded later
now failing.  The behavior will depend on driver load order and we're
not actually insuring that the overflow resource is unused, just that
we got it first.  Can we do better?  Am I missing something that
prevents this?  Thanks,

Alex

> +			dummy_res->index = bar;
> +			list_add(&dummy_res->res_next,
> +					&vdev->dummy_resources_list);
> +			vdev->bar_mmap_supported[bar] = true;
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +		/*
> +		 * Here we don't handle the case when the BAR is not page
> +		 * aligned because we can't expect the BAR will be
> +		 * assigned into the same location in a page in guest
> +		 * when we passthrough the BAR. And it's hard to access
> +		 * this BAR in userspace because we have no way to get
> +		 * the BAR's location in a page.
> +		 */
> +no_mmap:
> +		vdev->bar_mmap_supported[bar] = false;
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  static void vfio_pci_try_bus_reset(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev);
>  static void vfio_pci_disable(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev);
>  
> @@ -218,12 +285,15 @@ static int vfio_pci_enable(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	vfio_pci_probe_mmaps(vdev);
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static void vfio_pci_disable(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev)
>  {
>  	struct pci_dev *pdev = vdev->pdev;
> +	struct vfio_pci_dummy_resource *dummy_res, *tmp;
>  	int i, bar;
>  
>  	/* Stop the device from further DMA */
> @@ -252,6 +322,13 @@ static void vfio_pci_disable(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev)
>  		vdev->barmap[bar] = NULL;
>  	}
>  
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(dummy_res, tmp,
> +				 &vdev->dummy_resources_list, res_next) {
> +		list_del(&dummy_res->res_next);
> +		release_resource(&dummy_res->resource);
> +		kfree(dummy_res);
> +	}
> +
>  	vdev->needs_reset = true;
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -623,9 +700,7 @@ static long vfio_pci_ioctl(void *device_data,
>  
>  			info.flags = VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_READ |
>  				     VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_WRITE;
> -			if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_MMAP) &&
> -			    pci_resource_flags(pdev, info.index) &
> -			    IORESOURCE_MEM && info.size >= PAGE_SIZE) {
> +			if (vdev->bar_mmap_supported[info.index]) {
>  				info.flags |= VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_MMAP;
>  				if (info.index == vdev->msix_bar) {
>  					ret = msix_sparse_mmap_cap(vdev, &caps);
> @@ -1049,16 +1124,16 @@ static int vfio_pci_mmap(void *device_data, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	if (index >= VFIO_PCI_ROM_REGION_INDEX)
>  		return -EINVAL;
> -	if (!(pci_resource_flags(pdev, index) & IORESOURCE_MEM))
> +	if (!vdev->bar_mmap_supported[index])
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	phys_len = pci_resource_len(pdev, index);
> +	phys_len = PAGE_ALIGN(pci_resource_len(pdev, index));
>  	req_len = vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start;
>  	pgoff = vma->vm_pgoff &
>  		((1U << (VFIO_PCI_OFFSET_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT)) - 1);
>  	req_start = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
>  
> -	if (phys_len < PAGE_SIZE || req_start + req_len > phys_len)
> +	if (req_start + req_len > phys_len)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
>  	if (index == vdev->msix_bar) {
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
> index 016c14a..2128de8 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
> @@ -57,9 +57,16 @@ struct vfio_pci_region {
>  	u32				flags;
>  };
>  
> +struct vfio_pci_dummy_resource {
> +	struct resource		resource;
> +	int			index;
> +	struct list_head	res_next;
> +};
> +
>  struct vfio_pci_device {
>  	struct pci_dev		*pdev;
>  	void __iomem		*barmap[PCI_STD_RESOURCE_END + 1];
> +	bool			bar_mmap_supported[PCI_STD_RESOURCE_END + 1];
>  	u8			*pci_config_map;
>  	u8			*vconfig;
>  	struct perm_bits	*msi_perm;
> @@ -88,6 +95,7 @@ struct vfio_pci_device {
>  	int			refcnt;
>  	struct eventfd_ctx	*err_trigger;
>  	struct eventfd_ctx	*req_trigger;
> +	struct list_head	dummy_resources_list;
>  };
>  
>  #define is_intx(vdev) (vdev->irq_type == VFIO_PCI_INTX_IRQ_INDEX)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists