Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 03/13] KVM: Define a new interface kvm_intr_is_single_vcpu() | From | Paolo Bonzini <> | Date | Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:24:53 +0200 |
| |
>> On 17/09/2015 05:17, Wu, Feng wrote: >>>>>>> + if (irq->dest_mode == APIC_DEST_PHYSICAL) { >>>>>>> + if (irq->dest_id == 0xFF) >>>>>>> + goto out; >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + if (irq->dest_id >= ARRAY_SIZE(map->phys_map)) { >>>>> >>>>> Warning here is wrong, the guest can trigger it. >>> Could you please share more information about how the guest >>> triggers these conditions (including the following two), Thanks >>> a lot! >> >> irq->dest_id is a 16-bit value, so it can be > 255. > > Yes, irq->dest_id is defined as u32, but by looking the current KVM > code, seems desst_id is used as an u8 variable, even in x2apic mode > the dest_id will not beyond 255 (except for broadcast dest in in x2apic > mode). Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks a lot!
Actually you're right, the MSI destination is only 8 bits. I was confused because of
#define MSI_ADDR_DEST_ID_MASK 0x00ffff0
in arch/x86/include/asm/msidef.h. But there may be a bug, see below...
>>> + if (cid >= ARRAY_SIZE(map->logical_map)) { >>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1); >> >> In x2apic mode irq->dest_id could have bits 12..15 set. > > cid is gotten from bit 16 ..31 of the ldr (in apic_logical_id()), and > in x2apic mode, ldr is constructed in kvm_apic_set_x2apic_id() as > below: > > u32 ldr = ((id >> 4) << 16) | (1 << (id & 0xf)); > > So in fact, cid is (id >> 4), I cannot think of why cid can beyond 15.
I think kvm_apic_match_logical_addr for MSI and IOAPIC interrupts is buggy in x2apic mode.
It does:
if (apic_x2apic_mode(apic)) return ((logical_id >> 16) == (mda >> 16)) && (logical_id & mda & 0xffff) != 0;
But mda is only 8-bits for MSI and IOAPIC interrupts.
Radim, should kvm_apic_mda also handle the !ipi && x2apic_mda && dest_id != APIC_BROADCAST case? It never triggers with Linux because it uses only the physical mode (that's not super-easy to see; ioapic_set_affinity looks for the RTEs in irq_data->chip_data and that is allocated with kzalloc).
> Do I miss something here? Thanks!
No, you were right.
But still I think the WARNs are unnecessary; it is conceivable that some future chipset adds support for more than 8-bits in the dest_id.
Paolo
> Thanks, > Feng > >> >> Paolo
| |