> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 26 September 2018 11:58
> To: Julien Grall <[email protected]>; Paul Durrant
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>; Roger Pau Monne
> <[email protected]>; Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>; xen-
> devel <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: IOREQ server on Arm
>
> >>> On 26.09.18 at 12:51, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Julien Grall [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: 26 September 2018 11:41
> >> To: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>; Paul Durrant
> >> <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>; Roger Pau Monne
> >> <[email protected]>; Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>;
> xen-
> >> devel <[email protected]>
> >> Subject: Re: IOREQ server on Arm
> >>
> >> Hi Jan,
> >>
> >> On 09/26/2018 09:08 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>>> On 26.09.18 at 00:39, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Hi Paul,
> >> >>
> >> >> I am looking at porting the IOREQ server infrastructure on Arm. I
> >> didn't
> >> >> need much modification to make it run for Arm. Although, the
> >> >> implementation could be simplified over the x86 implementation.
> >> >>
> >> >> I noticed some issue while trying to implement the hypercall
> >> >> XENMEM_acquire_resource. Per my understanding, all the page mapped
> via
> >> >> that hypercall will use the type p2m_mapping_foreign.
> >> >>
> >> >> This will result to trigger the ASSERT(fdom != dom) in
> >> get_page_from_gfn
> >> >> (asm-arm/p2m.h) because the IOREQ page has been allocated to the
> >> >> emulator domain and mapped to it. AFAICT x86 has the same assert in
> >> >> p2m_get_page_from_gfn(...).
> >> >>
> >> >> IHMO, the ASSERT makes sense because you are only meant to map page
> >> >> belonging to other domain with that type.
> >> >>
> >> >> So I am wondering whether IOREQ server running in PVH Dom0 has been
> >> >> tested? What would be the best course of action to fix the issue?
> >> >
> >> > I think the p2m type needs to be chosen based on
> >> > XENMEM_rsrc_acq_caller_owned.
> >>
> >> I am thinking to introduce p2m_mapping_owned. Or do we have a p2m_type
> >> that we could re-use?
> >>
> >
> > I think we should be able to just use p2m_ram_rw if it is caller owned.
>
> Yes, that's what I too would have thought. If there ever was a resource
> which may only be mapped r/o, p2m_ram_ro should then be equally usable.
>
Yes, that's true. The only existent resources are read-write though so I guess
another flag passed back to the caller could be used to indicate a read-only
resource.
I was thinking along the lines of a patch like this:
diff --git a/xen/common/memory.c b/xen/common/memory.c
index 996f94b103..82c18fa9ad 100644
--- a/xen/common/memory.c
+++ b/xen/common/memory.c
@@ -1105,8 +1105,11 @@ static int acquire_resource(
for ( i = 0; !rc && i < xmar.nr_frames; i++ )
{
- rc = set_foreign_p2m_entry(currd, gfn_list[i],
- _mfn(mfn_list[i]));
+ rc = (xmar.flags & XENMEM_rsrc_acq_caller_owned) ?
+ guest_physmap_add_entry(currd, gfn_list[i],
+ _mfn(mfn_list[i]), 0, p2m_ram_rw) :
+ set_foreign_p2m_entry(currd, gfn_list[i],
+ _mfn(mfn_list[i]));
/* rc should be -EIO for any iteration other than the first */
if ( rc && i )
rc = -EIO;
But the guest_physmap_add_entry() is problematic as it will IOMMU map pages as
well, which is probably not wanted.
Paul
> Jan
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
