From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>

According to the documentation in memory.h a ROM memory region will be
backed by RAM for reads, but is supposed to go through a callback for
writes. Currently we were not checking for the existence of the rom_device
flag when determining if we could perform a direct write or not.

To correct that add a check to memory_region_is_direct so that if the
memory region has the rom_device flag set we will return false for all
checks where is_write is set.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
---
 include/exec/memory.h |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
index 1614d9a02c0c..e000bd2f97b2 100644
--- a/include/exec/memory.h
+++ b/include/exec/memory.h
@@ -2351,8 +2351,8 @@ void address_space_write_cached_slow(MemoryRegionCache *cache,
 static inline bool memory_access_is_direct(MemoryRegion *mr, bool is_write)
 {
     if (is_write) {
-        return memory_region_is_ram(mr) &&
-               !mr->readonly && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr);
+        return memory_region_is_ram(mr) && !mr->readonly &&
+               !mr->rom_device && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr);
     } else {
         return (memory_region_is_ram(mr) && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr)) ||
                memory_region_is_romd(mr);

On 10/04/20 05:41, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> 
> According to the documentation in memory.h a ROM memory region will be
> backed by RAM for reads, but is supposed to go through a callback for
> writes. Currently we were not checking for the existence of the rom_device
> flag when determining if we could perform a direct write or not.
> 
> To correct that add a check to memory_region_is_direct so that if the
> memory region has the rom_device flag set we will return false for all
> checks where is_write is set.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  include/exec/memory.h |    4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
> index 1614d9a02c0c..e000bd2f97b2 100644
> --- a/include/exec/memory.h
> +++ b/include/exec/memory.h
> @@ -2351,8 +2351,8 @@ void address_space_write_cached_slow(MemoryRegionCache *cache,
>  static inline bool memory_access_is_direct(MemoryRegion *mr, bool is_write)
>  {
>      if (is_write) {
> -        return memory_region_is_ram(mr) &&
> -               !mr->readonly && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr);
> +        return memory_region_is_ram(mr) && !mr->readonly &&
> +               !mr->rom_device && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr);
>      } else {
>          return (memory_region_is_ram(mr) && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr)) ||
>                 memory_region_is_romd(mr);
> 

Good catch.  I queued this up for 5.0.

Thanks,

Paolo

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:50 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/04/20 05:41, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > According to the documentation in memory.h a ROM memory region will be
> > backed by RAM for reads, but is supposed to go through a callback for
> > writes. Currently we were not checking for the existence of the rom_device
> > flag when determining if we could perform a direct write or not.
> >
> > To correct that add a check to memory_region_is_direct so that if the
> > memory region has the rom_device flag set we will return false for all
> > checks where is_write is set.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  include/exec/memory.h |    4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
> > index 1614d9a02c0c..e000bd2f97b2 100644
> > --- a/include/exec/memory.h
> > +++ b/include/exec/memory.h
> > @@ -2351,8 +2351,8 @@ void address_space_write_cached_slow(MemoryRegionCache *cache,
> >  static inline bool memory_access_is_direct(MemoryRegion *mr, bool is_write)
> >  {
> >      if (is_write) {
> > -        return memory_region_is_ram(mr) &&
> > -               !mr->readonly && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr);
> > +        return memory_region_is_ram(mr) && !mr->readonly &&
> > +               !mr->rom_device && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr);
> >      } else {
> >          return (memory_region_is_ram(mr) && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr)) ||
> >                 memory_region_is_romd(mr);
> >
>
> Good catch.  I queued this up for 5.0.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo

Thanks Paolo,

It looks like you only pulled this patch correct?

If so, David & Michael, do I need to resubmit the first 3 in this
series or can those be pulled separately?

Thanks.

Alex

On 14.04.20 00:48, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:50 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/04/20 05:41, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> According to the documentation in memory.h a ROM memory region will be
>>> backed by RAM for reads, but is supposed to go through a callback for
>>> writes. Currently we were not checking for the existence of the rom_device
>>> flag when determining if we could perform a direct write or not.
>>>
>>> To correct that add a check to memory_region_is_direct so that if the
>>> memory region has the rom_device flag set we will return false for all
>>> checks where is_write is set.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/exec/memory.h |    4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
>>> index 1614d9a02c0c..e000bd2f97b2 100644
>>> --- a/include/exec/memory.h
>>> +++ b/include/exec/memory.h
>>> @@ -2351,8 +2351,8 @@ void address_space_write_cached_slow(MemoryRegionCache *cache,
>>>  static inline bool memory_access_is_direct(MemoryRegion *mr, bool is_write)
>>>  {
>>>      if (is_write) {
>>> -        return memory_region_is_ram(mr) &&
>>> -               !mr->readonly && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr);
>>> +        return memory_region_is_ram(mr) && !mr->readonly &&
>>> +               !mr->rom_device && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr);
>>>      } else {
>>>          return (memory_region_is_ram(mr) && !memory_region_is_ram_device(mr)) ||
>>>                 memory_region_is_romd(mr);
>>>
>>
>> Good catch.  I queued this up for 5.0.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Paolo
> 
> Thanks Paolo,
> 
> It looks like you only pulled this patch correct?
> 
> If so, David & Michael, do I need to resubmit the first 3 in this
> series or can those be pulled separately?

QEMU is currently in hard freeze. I'll have a final look over the
patches. If nothing jumps at me (and nothing changed upstream in the
meantime), Michael will queue them without a resend.

Thanks!


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb