Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] intel_iommu: Fix unexpected unmaps during global unmap

[Peter Xu]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 02:41:22AM -0400, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 02:37:33PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > From: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
> > 
> > This is an replacement work of Yan Zhao's patch:
> > 
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg625340.html
> > 
> > vtd_address_space_unmap() will do proper page mask alignment to make
> > sure each IOTLB message will have correct masks for notification
> > messages (2^N-1), but sometimes it can be expanded to even supercede
> > the registered range.  That could lead to unexpected UNMAP of already
> > mapped regions in some other notifiers.
> > 
> > Instead of doing mindless expension of the start address and address
> > mask, we split the range into smaller ones and guarantee that each
> > small range will have correct masks (2^N-1) and at the same time we
> > should also try our best to generate as less IOTLB messages as
> > possible.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Yan Zhao <address@hidden>
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
> > [peterx: fixup mask generation algos and other touchups, introduce
> >  vtd_get_next_mask(), write commit message]
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> >  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> > index 719ce19ab3..39cedf73b8 100644
> > --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> > +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> > @@ -3363,11 +3363,31 @@ VTDAddressSpace *vtd_find_add_as(IntelIOMMUState 
> > *s, PCIBus *bus, int devfn)
> >      return vtd_dev_as;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static uint64_t vtd_get_next_mask(uint64_t start, uint64_t size, int gaw)
> > +{
> > +    /* Tries to find smallest mask from start first */
> > +    uint64_t rmask = start & -start, max_mask = 1ULL << gaw;
> > +
> > +    assert(size && gaw > 0 && gaw < 64);
> > +
> > +    /* Zero start, or too big */
> > +    if (!rmask || rmask > max_mask) {
> > +        rmask = max_mask;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    /* If the start mask worked, then use it */
> > +    if (rmask <= size) {
> > +        return rmask;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    /* Find the largest page mask from size */
> > +    return 1ULL << (63 - clz64(size));
> > +}
> > +
> >  /* Unmap the whole range in the notifier's scope. */
> >  static void vtd_address_space_unmap(VTDAddressSpace *as, IOMMUNotifier *n)
> >  {
> > -    IOMMUTLBEntry entry;
> > -    hwaddr size;
> > +    hwaddr size, remain;
> >      hwaddr start = n->start;
> >      hwaddr end = n->end;
> >      IntelIOMMUState *s = as->iommu_state;
> > @@ -3388,39 +3408,37 @@ static void vtd_address_space_unmap(VTDAddressSpace 
> > *as, IOMMUNotifier *n)
> >      }
> >  
> >      assert(start <= end);
> > -    size = end - start;
> > +    size = remain = end - start + 1;
> >  
> > -    if (ctpop64(size) != 1) {
> > -        /*
> > -         * This size cannot format a correct mask. Let's enlarge it to
> > -         * suite the minimum available mask.
> > -         */
> > -        int n = 64 - clz64(size);
> > -        if (n > s->aw_bits) {
> > -            /* should not happen, but in case it happens, limit it */
> > -            n = s->aw_bits;
> > -        }
> > -        size = 1ULL << n;
> > +    while (remain > 0) {
> hi 
> I think here remain should still be "remain >= VTD_PAGE_SIZE"
> because we cannot unmap entry less than PAGE_SIZE.

Yes we can.

I'd say this is purely for protection purpose no matter what.  If we
did write the code correctly when registering the IOMMU notifier then
we'll always have aligned "remain" here and these checks will be
meaningless...  So we'll definitely fail in the case you mentioned,
imho the only difference is when it happens.

If we want to fail at the earliest point, we can probably check during
registering of the notifiers for page alignment.

> 
> > +        IOMMUTLBEntry entry;
> > +        uint64_t mask = vtd_get_next_mask(start, remain, s->aw_bits);
> > +
> > +        assert(mask);
> > +
> 
> > +        entry.iova = start;
> > +        entry.addr_mask = mask - 1;
> > +        entry.target_as = &address_space_memory;
> > +        entry.perm = IOMMU_NONE;
> > +        /* This field is meaningless for unmap */
> > +        entry.translated_addr = 0;
> > +
> > +        memory_region_notify_one(n, &entry);
> > +
> > +        start += mask;
> > +        remain -= mask;
> >      }
> Add assert(remain) here?

Do you mean assert(!remain)?  If so, it's below [1].

> 
> >  
> > -    entry.target_as = &address_space_memory;
> > -    /* Adjust iova for the size */
> > -    entry.iova = n->start & ~(size - 1);
> > -    /* This field is meaningless for unmap */
> > -    entry.translated_addr = 0;
> > -    entry.perm = IOMMU_NONE;
> > -    entry.addr_mask = size - 1;
> > +    assert(!remain);

[1]

> >  
> >      trace_vtd_as_unmap_whole(pci_bus_num(as->bus),
> >                               VTD_PCI_SLOT(as->devfn),
> >                               VTD_PCI_FUNC(as->devfn),
> > -                             entry.iova, size);
> > +                             n->start, size);
> >  
> > -    map.iova = entry.iova;
> > -    map.size = entry.addr_mask;
> > +    map.iova = n->start;
> > +    map.size = size;
> >      iova_tree_remove(as->iova_tree, &map);
> > -
> > -    memory_region_notify_one(n, &entry);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void vtd_address_space_unmap_all(IntelIOMMUState *s)
> > -- 
> > 2.21.0
> > 

Regards,

-- 
Peter Xu