| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5673C296.8010403@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:23:50 +0800
From: yongji xie <xyjxie@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc: 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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] vfio-pci: Allow to mmap sub-page MMIO BARs if all
MMIO BARs are page aligned
On 2015/12/18 5:46, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-12-17 at 18:26 +0800, yongji xie wrote:
>> On 2015/12/17 4:04, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2015-12-11 at 16:53 +0800, Yongji Xie 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.
>>>>
>>>> But we should allow to mmap these sub-page MMIO BARs if all MMIO
>>>> BARs
>>>> are page aligned which leads the BARs' mmio page would not be
>>>> shared
>>>> with other BARs.
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds support for this case and we also add a
>>>> VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_PCI_PAGE_ALIGNED flag to notify userspace that
>>>> platform supports all MMIO BARs to be page aligned.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yongji Xie <xyjxie@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 5 +++++
>>>> include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 2 ++
>>>> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>>>> b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>>>> index 32b88bd..dbcad99 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
>>>> @@ -443,6 +443,9 @@ static long vfio_pci_ioctl(void *device_data,
>>>> if (vdev->reset_works)
>>>> info.flags |= VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_RESET;
>>>>
>>>> + if (vfio_pci_bar_page_aligned())
>>>> + info.flags |=
>>>> VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_PCI_PAGE_ALIGNED;
>>>> +
>>>> info.num_regions = VFIO_PCI_NUM_REGIONS;
>>>> info.num_irqs = VFIO_PCI_NUM_IRQS;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -479,7 +482,8 @@ static long vfio_pci_ioctl(void *device_data,
>>>> VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_WRIT
>>>> E;
>>>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_MMAP) &&
>>>> pci_resource_flags(pdev,
>>>> info.index) &
>>>> - IORESOURCE_MEM && info.size >=
>>>> PAGE_SIZE)
>>>> + IORESOURCE_MEM && (info.size >=
>>>> PAGE_SIZE ||
>>>> + vfio_pci_bar_page_aligned()))
>>>> info.flags |=
>>>> VFIO_REGION_INFO_FLAG_MMAP;
>>>> break;
>>>> case VFIO_PCI_ROM_REGION_INDEX:
>>>> @@ -855,6 +859,10 @@ static int vfio_pci_mmap(void *device_data,
>>>> struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> phys_len = pci_resource_len(pdev, index);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (vfio_pci_bar_page_aligned())
>>>> + phys_len = PAGE_ALIGN(phys_len);
>>>> +
>>>> req_len = vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start;
>>>> pgoff = vma->vm_pgoff &
>>>> ((1U << (VFIO_PCI_OFFSET_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT)) -
>>>> 1);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
>>>> b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
>>>> index 0e7394f..319352a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h
>>>> @@ -69,6 +69,11 @@ struct vfio_pci_device {
>>>> #define is_irq_none(vdev) (!(is_intx(vdev) || is_msi(vdev) ||
>>>> is_msix(vdev)))
>>>> #define irq_is(vdev, type) (vdev->irq_type == type)
>>>>
>>>> +static inline bool vfio_pci_bar_page_aligned(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64);
>>>> +}
>>> I really dislike this. This is a problem for any architecture that
>>> runs on larger pages, and even an annoyance on 4k hosts. Why are
>>> we
>>> only solving it for PPC64?
>> Yes, I know it's a problem for other architectures. But I'm not sure
>> if
>> other archs prefer
>> to enforce the alignment of all BARs to be at least PAGE_SIZE which
>> would result in
>> some waste of address space.
>>
>> So I just propose a prototype and add PPC64 support here. And other
>> archs could decide
>> to use it or not by themselves.
>>> Can't we do something similar in the core PCI code and detect it?
>> So you mean we can do it like this:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.h b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>> index d390fc1..f46c04d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.h
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>> @@ -320,6 +320,11 @@ static inline resource_size_t
>> pci_resource_alignment(struct pci_dev *dev,
>> return resource_alignment(res);
>> }
>>
>> +static inline bool pci_bar_page_aligned(void)
>> +{
>> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64);
>> +}
>> +
>> void pci_enable_acs(struct pci_dev *dev);
>>
>> struct pci_dev_reset_methods {
>>
>> or add a config option to indicate that PCI MMIO BARs should be page
>> aligned?
> Yes, I'm thinking of a boot commandline option, maybe one that PPC64
> can default to enabled if it chooses to. The problem is not unique to
> PPC64 and the solution should not be unique either. I don't want to
> need to revisit this for ARM, which we know is going to be similarly
> afflicted. Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
OK. I will try to fix it by adding a boot commandline option.
It seems to be better than adding a config option. Thanks
Regards
Yongji Xie
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists