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

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 09/05/2013 11:08 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 05.09.2013, at 14:49, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> 
>> On 09/05/2013 10:16 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05.09.2013, at 14:04, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Nono, we basically route things through the same accesses that instructions 
>>> inside of guest context would call. Something like
>>>
>>>  cpu_ldl_data()
>>>
>>> for example. IIRC there is also an #ifdef that allows you to just run ldl().
>>
>> cpu_ldl_data() is defined for CONFIG_USER_ONLY. But ok, it is defined
>> simply as ldl_p():
>>
>> #define cpu_ldl_data(env, addr) ldl_raw(addr)
>> #define g2h(x) ((void *)((unsigned long)(target_ulong)(x) + GUEST_BASE))
>> #define laddr(x) g2h(x)
>> #define ldl_raw(p) ldl_p(laddr((p)))
>>
>> static inline int ldl_p(const void *ptr)
>> {
>>    int32_t r;
>>    memcpy(&r, ptr, sizeof(r));
>>    return r;
>> }
>>
>> So it tries accessing memory @ptr (which is the guest physical) and -
>> crashes :) So I need an address converter which is not there.
>>
>> What do I miss? Thanks.
> 
> It should be defined through a bunch of macros and incomprehensible 
> #include's and glue()'s for softmmu too. Just try and see if it works for you.


Hm. I was not clear. I tried. It crashed in ldl_p() and I explained why
exactly. I understand what you expected but it should be different set of
macros than the one you proposed.



>>> It automatically uses the current virtual layout the same way that the 
>>> instruction emulator would do it - which is pretty much what we want.
>>>
>>
>>> IIRC you also have to enter RTAS calls with DR=0, so we wouldn't even
>>> need to flip any MSR bits when emulating RTAS calls, right?
>>
>> Probably. Right now cpu->env.msr==0x0 in rtas handler but not sure that I
>> see the real value.
> 
> Make sure you run cpu_synchronize_state() before you look at cpu->env.msr.

Oh, right.


-- 
Alexey