[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 3/5] exec: Support 64-bit operations in address_s
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 3/5] exec: Support 64-bit operations in address_space_rw |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:45:39 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 |
Il 17/07/2013 15:23, Richard Henderson ha scritto:
> On 07/17/2013 04:09 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
>>> Fails for me:
>>>
>>> qemu-system-x86_64: /work/armbru/qemu/exec.c:1927: memory_access_size:
>>> Assertion `l >= access_size_min' failed.
>>
>> This:
>>
>> unsigned access_size_min = mr->ops->impl.min_access_size;
>> unsigned access_size_max = mr->ops->impl.max_access_size;
>>
>> must be respectively:
>>
>> unsigned access_size_min = 1;
>> unsigned access_size_max = mr->ops->valid.max_access_size;
>>
>> access_size_min can be 1 because erroneous accesses must not crash
>> QEMU, they should trigger exceptions in the guest or just return
>> garbage (depending on the CPU). I'm not sure I understand the comment,
>> placing a 4-byte field at the last byte of a region makes no sense
>> (unless impl.unaligned is true).
>>
>> access_size_max can be mr->ops->valid.max_access_size because memory.c
>> can and will still break accesses bigger than
>> mr->ops->impl.max_access_size.
>>
>> Markus, can you try the minimal patch above? Or this one that also
>> does the consequent simplifications.
>
> NAK.
>
> If you remove the check here, you're just trading it for one in the device.
> The device told you that it can't support a 1 byte read. (Either that, or the
> device incorrectly reported what it can actually do.)
There are two parts to this.
First of all, mr->ops->impl.min_access_size is definitely wrong. The
device told me that the MMIO functions only know about 2-byte accesses,
but that it _can_ support 1-, 2- and 4- byte reads (with coalescing done
by memory.c). So I could change access_size_min to
mr->ops->valid.min_access_size, which would also fix Markus's problem.
But then, accesses smaller than mr->ops->valid.min_access_size are fine,
they just result in exceptions or garbage reads (depending on the CPU).
address_space_rw reports these errors just fine, memory_access_size's
only purpose is to split address_space_rw's MMIO writes in a sensible
manner. There is no error reporting because it is done in memory.c.
In fact, I'm not even sure if users of memory_access_size (DMA to an
MMIO destination) exist in real hardware. I'm curious if "BSAVE"ing
16-color EGA graphics works with a modern graphic card and a BIOS that
doesn't use PIO.
Paolo
> The proper fix is to change the interface of memory_access_size such that it
> can report errors. Indeed, very likely we should change it and its callers to
> also support over-sized reads, like access_with_adjusted_size in memory.c.
>
>
> r~
>
- [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/5] alpha-softmmu fixes, Richard Henderson, 2013/07/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 3/5] exec: Support 64-bit operations in address_space_rw, Anthony Liguori, 2013/07/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 3/5] exec: Support 64-bit operations in address_space_rw, Paolo Bonzini, 2013/07/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 3/5] exec: Support 64-bit operations in address_space_rw, Richard Henderson, 2013/07/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 3/5] exec: Support 64-bit operations in address_space_rw, Paolo Bonzini, 2013/07/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 3/5] exec: Support 64-bit operations in address_space_rw, Richard Henderson, 2013/07/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 3/5] exec: Support 64-bit operations in address_space_rw, Paolo Bonzini, 2013/07/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 3/5] exec: Support 64-bit operations in address_space_rw, Richard Henderson, 2013/07/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 3/5] exec: Support 64-bit operations in address_space_rw, Anthony Liguori, 2013/07/17