qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu PATCH] hw/i386/pc_sysfw: support more than one fl


From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu PATCH] hw/i386/pc_sysfw: support more than one flash drive
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:17:44 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131118 Thunderbird/17.0.11

On 11/25/13 16:32, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> This patch allows the user to usefully specify
>>
>>   -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
>>   -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>>
>> on the command line. The flash images will be mapped under 4G in their
>> reverse unit order -- that is, with their base addresses progressing
>> downwards, in increasing unit order.
>>
>> (The unit number increases with command line order if not explicitly
>> specified.)
>>
>> This accommodates the following use case: suppose that OVMF is split in
>> two parts, a writeable host file for non-volatile variable storage, and a
>> read-only part for bootstrap and decompressible executable code.
>>
>> The binary code part would be read-only, centrally managed on the host
>> system, and passed in as unit 0. The variable store would be writeable,
>> VM-specific, and passed in as unit 1.
>>
>>   00000000ffe00000-00000000ffe1ffff (prio 0, R-): system.flash1
>>   00000000ffe20000-00000000ffffffff (prio 0, R-): system.flash0
>>
>> (If the guest tries to write to the flash range that is backed by the
>> read-only drive, bdrv_write() in pflash_update() will correctly deny the
>> write with -EACCES, and pflash_update() won't care, which suits us well.)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c | 60 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c b/hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c
>> index e917c83..1c3e3d6 100644
>> --- a/hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c
>> +++ b/hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c
>> @@ -72,35 +72,65 @@ static void pc_isa_bios_init(MemoryRegion *rom_memory,
>>      memory_region_set_readonly(isa_bios, true);
>>  }
>>  
>> +/* This function maps flash drives from 4G downward, in order of their unit
>> + * numbers. Addressing within one flash drive is of course not reversed.
>> + *
>> + * The drive with unit number 0 is mapped at the highest address, and it is
>> + * passed to pc_isa_bios_init(). Merging severral drives for isa-bios is not
>> + * supported.
>> + *
>> + * The caller is responsible to pass in the non-NULL @pflash_drv that
>> + * corresponds to the flash drive with unit number 0.
>> + */
>>  static void pc_system_flash_init(MemoryRegion *rom_memory,
>>                                   DriveInfo *pflash_drv)
>>  {
>> +    int unit = 0;
>>      BlockDriverState *bdrv;
>>      int64_t size;
>> -    hwaddr phys_addr;
>> +    hwaddr phys_addr = 0x100000000ULL;
>>      int sector_bits, sector_size;
>>      pflash_t *system_flash;
>>      MemoryRegion *flash_mem;
>> +    char name[64];
>>  
>> -    bdrv = pflash_drv->bdrv;
>> -    size = bdrv_getlength(pflash_drv->bdrv);
>>      sector_bits = 12;
>>      sector_size = 1 << sector_bits;
>>  
>> -    if ((size % sector_size) != 0) {
>> -        fprintf(stderr,
>> -                "qemu: PC system firmware (pflash) must be a multiple of 
>> 0x%x\n",
>> -                sector_size);
>> -        exit(1);
>> -    }
>> +    do {
>> +        bdrv = pflash_drv->bdrv;
>> +        size = bdrv_getlength(bdrv);
>> +        if ((size % sector_size) != 0) {
>> +            fprintf(stderr,
>> +                    "qemu: PC system firmware (pflash segment %d) must be a 
>> "
>> +                    "multiple of 0x%x\n", unit, sector_size);
>> +            exit(1);
>> +        }
>> +        if (size > phys_addr) {
>> +            fprintf(stderr, "qemu: pflash segments must fit under 4G "
>> +                    "cumulatively\n");
> 
> I suspect things go haywire long before you hit address zero.
> 
> Note that both pc_piix.c and pc_q35.c leave a hole in RAM just below 4G.
> The former's hole starts at 0xe0000000, the latter's at 0xb0000000.
> Should that be the limit?

I wanted to do the bare minimal here, to catch obviously wrong backing
drives (like a 10G file). This is already more verification than what
the current code does.

I wouldn't mind more a specific check, but I don't want to suggest (with
more specific code) that it's actually *safe* to go down to the limit
that I'd put here.

For example, the IO-APIC mmio range is [0xFEE00000..0xFEE01000[, leaving
free 18MB-4KB just below 4G. (Of which the current OVMF, including
variable store, takes up 2MB.) Grep IO_APIC_DEFAULT_ADDRESS.

I just don't want to send the message "it's safe to go all the way down
there". Right now the responsibility is with the user (you can specify a
single pflash device that's 20MB in size even now), and I'd like to
stick with that.

I believe that

  pflash_cfi01_register()
    sysbus_mmio_map()
      sysbus_mmio_map_common()
        memory_region_add_subregion()
          memory_region_add_subregion_common()

could, in theory, find a conflict at runtime (see the #if 0-surrounded
collision warning in memory_region_add_subregion_common()). But the
memory API doesn't consider such collisions hard errors, and no status
code is propagated to the caller.

So, if a saner / more reliable limit can be identified, I wouldn't mind
checking against that, but right now I know of no such sane / general
enough limit.

> 
>> +            exit(1);
>> +        }
>>  
>> -    phys_addr = 0x100000000ULL - size;
>> -    system_flash = pflash_cfi01_register(phys_addr, NULL, "system.flash", 
>> size,
>> -                                         bdrv, sector_size, size >> 
>> sector_bits,
>> -                                         1, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 
>> 0);
>> -    flash_mem = pflash_cfi01_get_memory(system_flash);
>> +        phys_addr -= size;
>>  
>> -    pc_isa_bios_init(rom_memory, flash_mem, size);
>> +        /* pflash_cfi01_register() creates a deep copy of the name */
>> +        snprintf(name, sizeof name, "system.flash%d", unit);
>> +        system_flash = pflash_cfi01_register(phys_addr, NULL /* qdev */, 
>> name,
>> +                                             size, bdrv, sector_size,
>> +                                             size >> sector_bits,
>> +                                             1      /* width */,
>> +                                             0x0000 /* id0 */,
>> +                                             0x0000 /* id1 */,
>> +                                             0x0000 /* id2 */,
>> +                                             0x0000 /* id3 */,
>> +                                             0      /* be */);
>> +        if (unit == 0) {
>> +            flash_mem = pflash_cfi01_get_memory(system_flash);
>> +            pc_isa_bios_init(rom_memory, flash_mem, size);
>> +        }
>> +        pflash_drv = drive_get(IF_PFLASH, 0, ++unit);
>> +    } while (pflash_drv != NULL);
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void old_pc_system_rom_init(MemoryRegion *rom_memory, bool 
>> isapc_ram_fw)
> 
> The drive with index 0 is passed as parameter pflash_drv.  The others
> the function gets itself.  I find that ugly.  Have you considered
> dropping the parameter?

I didn't like drive_get() to begin with. It always starts to scan the
drive list from the beginning, which makes the new loop in
pc_system_flash_init() O(n^2).

I was missing an interator-style interface for the drives, but I found
none, and I thought that iterating myself through them in O(n) (and
checking for the types) would break the current DriveInfo encapsulation.
So I kinda gave up on "elegance".

Ideally, what should be dropped is the "unit" local variable in
pc_system_flash_init(). The function should continue to take
"pflash_drv", which should however qualify as a pre-initialized
iterator. Then pc_system_flash_init() should traverse it until it runs out.

I can of course remove the parameter and start a "while" loop
(rather than a "do" loop) with drive_get(IF_PFLASH, 0, 0), if you
consider that an improvement.

Thanks!
Laszlo



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]