>-----Original Message-----
>From: CLEMENT MATHIEU--DRIF <clement.mathieu--d...@eviden.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 04/17] intel_iommu: Flush stage-2 cache in PADID-
>selective PASID-based iotlb invalidation
>
>
>
>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:
Sure, will change as below,
>
> 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?
Will add.
>> + 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.
What about below:
diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h
index 3290761595..e76fd9d377 100644
--- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h
+++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu_internal.h
@@ -479,9 +479,10 @@ typedef union VTDInvDesc VTDInvDesc;
#define VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_ALL_IN_PASID (2ULL << 4)
#define VTD_INV_DESC_PIOTLB_PSI_IN_PASID (3ULL << 4)
+/* Masks for IOTLB Invalidate Descriptor */
+#define VTD_INV_DESC_IOTLB_G (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)
diff --git a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
index 0733180501..9dd41b835b 100644
--- a/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
+++ b/hw/i386/intel_iommu.c
@@ -3708,8 +3708,9 @@ static bool vtd_process_piotlb_desc(IntelIOMMUState *s,
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]);
+ error_report_once("%s: invalid piotlb inv desc hi=0x%"PRIx64
+ " lo=0x%"PRIx64" (reserved bits unzero)",
+ __func__, inv_desc->val[1], inv_desc->val[0]);
return false;
}
@@ -3728,8 +3729,10 @@ static bool vtd_process_piotlb_desc(IntelIOMMUState *s,
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]);
+ error_report_once("%s: invalid piotlb inv desc: hi=0x%"PRIx64
+ ", lo=0x%"PRIx64" (type mismatch: 0x%llx)",
+ __func__, inv_desc->val[1], inv_desc->val[0],
+ inv_desc->val[0] & VTD_INV_DESC_IOTLB_G);
return false;
}
return true;
Thanks
Zhenzhong
