On 18/07/2024 10:16, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> Caution: External email. Do not open attachments or click links, unless this
> email comes from a known sender and you know the content is safe.
>
>
> Per spec 6.5.2.4, PADID-selective PASID-based iotlb invalidation will
> flush stage-2 iotlb entries with matching domain id and pasid.
>
> With scalable modern mode introduced, guest could send PASID-selective
> PASID-based iotlb invalidation to flush both stage-1 and stage-2 entries.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.d...@intel.com>
> ---
> hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h | 10 +++++
> hw/i386/intel_iommu.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h
> index 4e0331caba..f71fc91234 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h
> +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h
> @@ -440,6 +440,16 @@ typedef union VTDInvDesc VTDInvDesc;
> (0x3ffff800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM | VTD_SL_TM))
> : \
> (0x3ffff800ULL | ~(VTD_HAW_MASK(aw) | VTD_SL_IGN_COM))
>
> +#define VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_ALL_IN_PASID (2ULL << 4)
> +#define VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_PSI_IN_PASID (3ULL << 4)
> +
> +#define VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_RSVD_VAL0 0xfff000000000ffc0ULL
> +#define VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_RSVD_VAL1 0xf80ULL
> +
> +#define VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_PASID(val) (((val) >> 32) & 0xfffffULL)
> +#define VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_DID(val) (((val) >> 16) & \
> + VTD_DOMAIN_ID_MASK)
> +
> /* Information about page-selective IOTLB invalidate */
> struct VTDIOTLBPageInvInfo {
> uint16_t domain_id;
> diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> index 40cbd4a0f4..075a27adac 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
> @@ -2659,6 +2659,80 @@ static bool vtd_process_iotlb_desc(IntelIOMMUState *s,
> VTDInvDesc *inv_desc)
> return true;
> }
>
> +static gboolean vtd_hash_remove_by_pasid(gpointer key, gpointer value,
> + gpointer user_data)
> +{
> + VTDIOTLBEntry *entry = (VTDIOTLBEntry *)value;
> + VTDIOTLBPageInvInfo *info = (VTDIOTLBPageInvInfo *)user_data;
> +
> + return ((entry->domain_id == info->domain_id) &&
> + (entry->pasid == info->pasid));
> +}
> +
> +static void vtd_piotlb_pasid_invalidate(IntelIOMMUState *s,
> + uint16_t domain_id, uint32_t pasid)
> +{
> + VTDIOTLBPageInvInfo info;
> + VTDAddressSpace *vtd_as;
> + VTDContextEntry ce;
> +
> + info.domain_id = domain_id;
> + info.pasid = pasid;
> +
> + vtd_iommu_lock(s);
> + g_hash_table_foreach_remove(s->iotlb, vtd_hash_remove_by_pasid,
> + &info);
> + vtd_iommu_unlock(s);
> +
> + QLIST_FOREACH(vtd_as, &s->vtd_as_with_notifiers, next) {
> + if (!vtd_dev_to_context_entry(s, pci_bus_num(vtd_as->bus),
> + vtd_as->devfn, &ce) &&
> + domain_id == vtd_get_domain_id(s, &ce, vtd_as->pasid)) {
> + uint32_t rid2pasid = VTD_CE_GET_RID2PASID(&ce);
> +
> + if ((vtd_as->pasid != PCI_NO_PASID || pasid != rid2pasid) &&
> + vtd_as->pasid != pasid) {
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + if (!s->scalable_modern) {
> + vtd_address_space_sync(vtd_as);
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static bool vtd_process_piotlb_desc(IntelIOMMUState *s,
> + VTDInvDesc *inv_desc)
> +{
> + uint16_t domain_id;
> + uint32_t pasid;
> +
> + if ((inv_desc->val[0] & VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_RSVD_VAL0) ||
> + (inv_desc->val[1] & VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_RSVD_VAL1)) {
> + error_report_once("non-zero-field-in-piotlb_inv_desc hi: 0x%" PRIx64
> + " lo: 0x%" PRIx64, inv_desc->val[1], inv_desc->val[0]);
This error is not formatted as the other similar messages we print when
reserved bits are non-zero.
Here is what we've done in vtd_process_iotlb_desc:
error_report_once("%s: invalid iotlb inv desc: hi=0x%"PRIx64
", lo=0x%"PRIx64" (reserved bits unzero)",
__func__, inv_desc->hi, inv_desc->lo);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + domain_id = VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_DID(inv_desc->val[0]);
> + pasid = VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_PASID(inv_desc->val[0]);
> + switch (inv_desc->val[0] & VTD_INV_DESC_IOTLB_G) {
Not critical but why don't we have VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_G?
> + case VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_ALL_IN_PASID:
> + vtd_piotlb_pasid_invalidate(s, domain_id, pasid);
> + break;
> +
> + case VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_PSI_IN_PASID:
> + break;
> +
> + default:
> + error_report_once("Invalid granularity in P-IOTLB desc hi: 0x%"
> PRIx64
> + " lo: 0x%" PRIx64, inv_desc->val[1], inv_desc->val[0]);
Same comment, I think we should make the messages consistent across
descriptor handlers.
> + return false;
> + }
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static bool vtd_process_inv_iec_desc(IntelIOMMUState *s,
> VTDInvDesc *inv_desc)
> {
> @@ -2769,6 +2843,10 @@ static bool vtd_process_inv_desc(IntelIOMMUState *s)
> break;
>
> case VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB:
> + trace_vtd_inv_desc("p-iotlb", inv_desc.val[1], inv_desc.val[0]);
> + if (!vtd_process_piotlb_desc(s, &inv_desc)) {
> + return false;
> + }
> break;
>
> case VTD_INV_DESC_WAIT:
> --
> 2.34.1
>
