qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/4] intel_iommu: Do sanity check of vfio-pc


From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/4] intel_iommu: Do sanity check of vfio-pci earlier
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 08:24:49 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0

On 20/08/19 07:22, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 09:45:27AM +0200, Peter Xu wrote:
>> This is a RFC series.
>>
>> The VT-d code has some defects, one of them is that we cannot detect
>> the misuse of vIOMMU and vfio-pci early enough.
>>
>> For example, logically this is not allowed:
>>
>>   -device intel-iommu,caching-mode=off \
>>   -device vfio-pci,host=05:00.0
>>
>> Because the caching mode is required to make vfio-pci devices
>> functional.
>>
>> Previously we did this sanity check in vtd_iommu_notify_flag_changed()
>> as when the memory regions change their attributes.  However that's
>> too late in most cases!  Because the memory region layouts will only
>> change after IOMMU is enabled, and that's in most cases during the
>> guest OS boots.  So when the configuration is wrong, we will only bail
>> out during the guest boots rather than simply telling the user before
>> QEMU starts.
>>
>> The same problem happens on device hotplug, say, when we have this:
>>
>>   -device intel-iommu,caching-mode=off
>>
>> Then we do something like:
>>
>>   (HMP) device_add vfio-pci,host=05:00.0,bus=pcie.1
>>
>> If at that time the vIOMMU is enabled in the guest then the QEMU
>> process will simply quit directly due to this hotplug event.  This is
>> a bit insane...
>>
>> This series tries to solve above two problems by introducing two
>> sanity checks upon these places separately:
>>
>>   - machine done
>>   - hotplug device
>>
>> This is a bit awkward but I hope this could be better than before.
>> There is of course other solutions like hard-code the check into
>> vfio-pci but I feel it even more unpretty.  I didn't think out any
>> better way to do this, if there is please kindly shout out.
>>
>> Please have a look to see whether this would be acceptable, thanks.
> 
> Any more comment on this?

No problem from me, but I wouldn't mind if someone else merged it. :)

Paolo



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]