lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] xen: support 52 bit physical addresses in pv guests
From
Date


On 09/21/2017 10:41 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 21/09/17 16:14, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/21/2017 04:01 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Physical addresses on processors supporting 5 level paging can be up to
>>> 52 bits wide. For a Xen pv guest running on such a machine those
>>> physical addresses have to be supported in order to be able to use any
>>> memory on the machine even if the guest itself does not support 5 level
>>> paging.
>>>
>>> So when reading/writing a MFN from/to a pte don't use the kernel's
>>> PTE_PFN_MASK but a new XEN_PTE_MFN_MASK allowing full 40 bit wide MFNs.
>>
>> full 52 bits?
>
> The MFN mask is only 40 bits. This plus the 12 bits page offset are 52
> bits of machine address width.

Oh, right --- frames, not addresses.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/x86/include/asm/xen/page.h | 11 ++++++++++-
>>>   arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c           |  4 ++--
>>>   2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/page.h
>>> b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/page.h
>>> index 07b6531813c4..bcb8b193c8d1 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/page.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/page.h
>>> @@ -26,6 +26,15 @@ typedef struct xpaddr {
>>>       phys_addr_t paddr;
>>>   } xpaddr_t;
>>>   +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>>> +#define XEN_PHYSICAL_MASK    ((1UL << 52) - 1)
>>
>>
>> SME is not supported for PV guests but for consistency (and in case sme
>> bit somehow gets set)
>> #define XEN_PHYSICAL_MASK    __sme_clr(((1UL << 52) - 1))
>
> Hmm, really? Shouldn't we rather add something like
>
> BUG_ON(sme_active());
>
> somewhere?

We can do that too.

>
>> But the real question that I have is whether this patch is sufficient.
>> We are trying to preserve more bits in mfn but then this mfn is used,
>> say, in pte_pfn_to_mfn() to build a pte. Can we be sure that the pte
>> won't be stripped of higher bits in native code (again, as an example,
>> native_make_pte()) because we are compiled with 5LEVEL?
>
> native_make_pte() just encapsulates pte_t. It doesn't modify the value
> of the pte at all.

It's an interface though and so we don't know what is (or can) happen
under it.

(I also obviously meant "because we are *not* compiled with 5LEVEL")

>
> Physical address bits are only ever masked away via PTE_PFN_MASK and I
> haven't found any place where it is used for a MFN other than those I
> touched in this patch.


OK.

-boris

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-21 19:35    [W:0.098 / U:2.056 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site