Hi Michal, Luca,
On 5/20/2024 7:24 PM, Michal Orzel wrote:
Hi Henry,
+CC: Luca
On 17/05/2024 05:21, Henry Wang wrote:
To make things easier, add restriction that static shared memory
should also be direct-mapped for direct-mapped domains. Check the
host physical address to be matched with guest physical address when
parsing the device tree. Document this restriction in the doc.
I'm ok with this restriction.
@Luca, do you have any use case preventing us from making this restriction?
This patch clashes with Luca series so depending on which goes first,
I agree that there will be some conflicts between the two series. To
avoid back and forth, if Luca's series goes in first, would it be ok for
you if I place the same check from this patch in
handle_shared_mem_bank() like below?
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/static-shmem.c b/xen/arch/arm/static-shmem.c
index 9c3a83042d..2d23fa4917 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/static-shmem.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/static-shmem.c
@@ -219,6 +219,13 @@ static int __init handle_shared_mem_bank(struct
domain *d, paddr_t gbase,
pbase = shm_bank->start;
psize = shm_bank->size;
+ if ( is_domain_direct_mapped(d) && (pbase != gbase) )
+ {
+ printk("%pd: physical address 0x%"PRIpaddr" and guest address
0x%"PRIpaddr" are not direct-mapped.\n",
+ d, pbase, gbase);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
printk("%pd: SHMEM map from %s: mphys 0x%"PRIpaddr" -> gphys
0x%"PRIpaddr", size 0x%"PRIpaddr"\n",
d, bank_from_heap ? "Xen heap" : "Host", pbase, gbase, psize);
Acked-by: Michal Orzel <michal.or...@amd.com>
Thanks. I will take the tag if you are ok with above diff (for the case
if this series goes in later than Luca's).
}
+ if ( is_domain_direct_mapped(d) && (pbase != gbase) )
+ {
+ printk("%pd: physical address 0x%"PRIpaddr" and guest address
0x%"PRIpaddr" are not 1:1 direct-mapped.\n",
NIT: 1:1 and direct-mapped means the same so no need to place them next to each
other
Ok. I will drop the "1:1" in the next version. Thanks.
Kind regards,
Henry
~Michal
