Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] spapr-rtas: reset top 4 bits in parameters address

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 09/05/2013 08:21 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 05.09.2013, at 12:17, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> 
>> On 09/05/2013 07:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05.09.2013, at 09:40, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/05/2013 05:08 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 05.09.2013 um 07:58 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy <address@hidden>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On the real hardware, RTAS is called in real mode and therefore
>>>>>> ignores top 4 bits of the address passed in the call.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't we ignore the upper 4 bits for every memory access in real 
>>>>> mode, not just that one parameter?
>>>>
>>>> We probably should but I just do not see any easy way of doing this. Yet
>>>> another "Ignore N bits on the top" memory region type? No idea.
>>>
>>> Well, it already works for code that runs inside of guest context, because 
>>> there the softmmu code for real mode strips the upper 4 bits.
>>>
>>> I basically see 2 ways of fixing this "correctly":
>>>
>>
>>> 1) Don't access memory through cpu_physical_memory_rw or ldx_phys but
>>> instead through real mode wrappers that strip the upper 4 bits, similar
>>> to how we handle virtual memory differently from physical memory
>>
>> But there is no a ready wrapper for this, correct? I could not find any. I
>> would rather do this, looks nicer than 2).
>>
>>
>>> 2) Create 15 aliases to system_memory at the upper 4 bits of address
>>> space. That should at the end of the day give you the same effect
>>
>> Wow. Is not that too much?
>> Ooor since I am normally making bad decisions, I should do this :)
>>
>>
>>> The fix as you're proposing it wouldn't work for indirect memory
>>> descriptors. Imagine you have an "address" parameter that gives you a
>>> pointer to a struct in memory that again contains a pointer. You still
>>> want that pointer be interpreted correctly, no?
>>
>> Yes I do. I just think that having non zero bits at the top is a bug and I
>> would not want the guest to continue sending bad addresses to the host. Or
>> at least I want to know if it still happening.
>>
>> Now we know that the only occasion of this misbehaviour is the "stop-self"
>> call and others works just fine. If something new comes up (what is pretty
>> unlikely, otherwise we would have noticed this issue a loong time ago AND
>> Paul already made&posted a patch for the host to fix __pa() so it is not
>> going to happen on new kernels either), ok, we will think of fixing this.
>>
>> Doing in QEMU what the hardware does is a good thing but here I would think
>> twice.
> 
> Well, the idea behind RTAS is that everything RTAS does is usually run in 
> IR=0 DR=0 inside of guest context, so that's the view of the world we should 
> expose.
> 
> Which makes me think.
> 

> Couldn't we just set IR=0 DR=0 when getting an RTAS call and use the
> virtual memory access functions? Those will already strip the upper 4
> bits.

Ok. We reached the border where my ignorance starts :) Never could
understand the concept of the guest virtual memory in QEMU.

So we clear IR/DR and call what API? This is not address_space_rw() and
company, right?



-- 
Alexey