Re: ovmf / PCI passthrough impaired due to very limiting PCI64 aperture

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 06/16/20 19:14, Guilherme Piccoli wrote:
> Thanks Gerd, Dave and Eduardo for the prompt responses!
> 
> So, I understand that when we use "-host-physical-bits", we are
> passing the *real* number for the guest, correct? So, in this case we
> can trust that the guest physbits matches the true host physbits.
> 
> What if then we have OVMF relying in the physbits *iff*
> "-host-phys-bits" is used (which is the default in RH and a possible
> machine configuration on libvirt XML in Ubuntu), and we have OVMF
> fallbacks to 36-bit otherwise?

I've now read the commit message on QEMU commit 258fe08bd341d, and the
complexity is simply stunning.

Right now, OVMF calculates the guest physical address space size from
various range sizes (such as hotplug memory area end, default or
user-configured PCI64 MMIO aperture), and derives the minimum suitable
guest-phys address width from that address space size. This width is
then exposed to the rest of the firmware with the CPU HOB (hand-off
block), which in turn controls how the GCD (global coherency domain)
memory space map is sized. Etc.

If QEMU can provide a *reliable* GPA width, in some info channel (CPUID
or even fw_cfg), then the above calculation could be reversed in OVMF.
We could take the width as a given (-> produce the CPU HOB directly),
plus calculate the *remaining* address space between the GPA space size
given by the width, and the end of the memory hotplug area end. If the
"remaining size" were negative, then obviously QEMU would have been
misconfigured, so we'd halt the boot. Otherwise, the remaining area
could be used as PCI64 MMIO aperture (PEI memory footprint of DXE page
tables be darned).

> Now, regarding the problem "to trust or not" in the guests' physbits,
> I think it's an orthogonal discussion to some extent. It'd be nice to
> have that check, and as Eduardo said, prevent migration in such cases.
> But it's not really preventing OVMF big PCI64 aperture if we only
> increase the aperture _when  "-host-physical-bits" is used_.

I don't know what exactly those flags do, but I doubt they are clearly
visible to OVMF in any particular way.

Thanks
Laszlo