hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
It's observed that Linux kernel booting with the VM reports a "conflicting
mapping for input ID" FW_BUG.
The IORT doc defines "Number of IDs" to be "the number of IDs in the range
minus one", while virt-acpi-build.c simply stores the number of IDs in the
id_count without the "minus one". Meanwhile, some of the callers pass in a
0xFFFF following the spec. So, this is a mismatch between the function and
its callers.
Fix build_iort_id_mapping() by internally subtracting one from the pass-in
@id_count. Accordingly make sure that all existing callers pass in a value
without the "minus one", i.e. change all 0xFFFFs to 0x10000s.
Also, add a few lines of comments to highlight this change along with the
referencing document for this build_iort_id_mapping().
Fixes: 42e0f050e3a5 ("hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: Add IORT support to bypass SMMUv3")
Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
---
Changelog
v3:
* Added "-1" internally in build_iort_id_mapping() instead
* Added comments to highlight this and referencing doc
v2:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240617223945.906996-1-nicolinc@nvidia.com/
* Moved "-1" to the same line of id_count calculation
* Added "+1" to the next_range.input_base calculation
v1:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240613234802.828265-1-nicolinc@nvidia.com/
hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
index c3ccfef026..ee6f56b410 100644
--- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
+++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
@@ -209,12 +209,20 @@ static void acpi_dsdt_add_tpm(Aml *scope, VirtMachineState *vms)
#define ROOT_COMPLEX_ENTRY_SIZE 36
#define IORT_NODE_OFFSET 48
+/*
+ * Input Output Remapping Table (IORT) -- Table 4 ID mapping format
+ * Conforms to "IO Remapping Table System Software on ARM Platforms",
+ * Document number: ARM DEN 0049E.b, Feb 2021
+ *
+ * Note that @id_count will be internally subtracted by one, following
+ * the IORT spec.
+ */
static void build_iort_id_mapping(GArray *table_data, uint32_t input_base,
uint32_t id_count, uint32_t out_ref)
{
- /* Table 4 ID mapping format */
build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, input_base, 4); /* Input base */
- build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, id_count, 4); /* Number of IDs */
+ /* Number of IDs - The number of IDs in the range minus one */
+ build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, id_count - 1, 4);
build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, input_base, 4); /* Output base */
build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, out_ref, 4); /* Output Reference */
/* Flags */
@@ -306,8 +314,8 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms)
}
/* Append the last RC -> ITS ID mapping */
- if (next_range.input_base < 0xFFFF) {
- next_range.id_count = 0xFFFF - next_range.input_base;
+ if (next_range.input_base < 0x10000) {
+ next_range.id_count = 0x10000 - next_range.input_base;
g_array_append_val(its_idmaps, next_range);
}
@@ -366,7 +374,7 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms)
build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, 0, 4);
/* output IORT node is the ITS group node (the first node) */
- build_iort_id_mapping(table_data, 0, 0xFFFF, IORT_NODE_OFFSET);
+ build_iort_id_mapping(table_data, 0, 0x10000, IORT_NODE_OFFSET);
}
/* Table 17 Root Complex Node */
@@ -419,7 +427,7 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms)
}
} else {
/* output IORT node is the ITS group node (the first node) */
- build_iort_id_mapping(table_data, 0, 0xFFFF, IORT_NODE_OFFSET);
+ build_iort_id_mapping(table_data, 0, 0x10000, IORT_NODE_OFFSET);
}
acpi_table_end(linker, &table);
--
2.43.0
Hi Nicolin, On 6/18/24 23:11, Nicolin Chen wrote: > It's observed that Linux kernel booting with the VM reports a "conflicting > mapping for input ID" FW_BUG. > > The IORT doc defines "Number of IDs" to be "the number of IDs in the range > minus one", while virt-acpi-build.c simply stores the number of IDs in the > id_count without the "minus one". Meanwhile, some of the callers pass in a > 0xFFFF following the spec. So, this is a mismatch between the function and > its callers. > > Fix build_iort_id_mapping() by internally subtracting one from the pass-in > @id_count. Accordingly make sure that all existing callers pass in a value > without the "minus one", i.e. change all 0xFFFFs to 0x10000s. > > Also, add a few lines of comments to highlight this change along with the > referencing document for this build_iort_id_mapping(). > > Fixes: 42e0f050e3a5 ("hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: Add IORT support to bypass SMMUv3") > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> > --- > Changelog > v3: > * Added "-1" internally in build_iort_id_mapping() instead > * Added comments to highlight this and referencing doc > v2: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240617223945.906996-1-nicolinc@nvidia.com/ > * Moved "-1" to the same line of id_count calculation > * Added "+1" to the next_range.input_base calculation > v1: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240613234802.828265-1-nicolinc@nvidia.com/ > > hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > index c3ccfef026..ee6f56b410 100644 > --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > @@ -209,12 +209,20 @@ static void acpi_dsdt_add_tpm(Aml *scope, VirtMachineState *vms) > #define ROOT_COMPLEX_ENTRY_SIZE 36 > #define IORT_NODE_OFFSET 48 > > +/* > + * Input Output Remapping Table (IORT) -- Table 4 ID mapping format > + * Conforms to "IO Remapping Table System Software on ARM Platforms", > + * Document number: ARM DEN 0049E.b, Feb 2021 I would rather explain what the function does, ie append an ID mapping entry as desribed in Tabble 4 ID Mapping format. Also while at it you may use a more recent revision There is DEN0049E_IO_Remapping_Table_E.f.pdf available Besides: Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> Thanks Eric > + * > + * Note that @id_count will be internally subtracted by one, following > + * the IORT spec. > + */ > static void build_iort_id_mapping(GArray *table_data, uint32_t input_base, > uint32_t id_count, uint32_t out_ref) > { > - /* Table 4 ID mapping format */ > build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, input_base, 4); /* Input base */ > - build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, id_count, 4); /* Number of IDs */ > + /* Number of IDs - The number of IDs in the range minus one */ > + build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, id_count - 1, 4); > build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, input_base, 4); /* Output base */ > build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, out_ref, 4); /* Output Reference */ > /* Flags */ > @@ -306,8 +314,8 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > } > > /* Append the last RC -> ITS ID mapping */ > - if (next_range.input_base < 0xFFFF) { > - next_range.id_count = 0xFFFF - next_range.input_base; > + if (next_range.input_base < 0x10000) { > + next_range.id_count = 0x10000 - next_range.input_base; > g_array_append_val(its_idmaps, next_range); > } > > @@ -366,7 +374,7 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, 0, 4); > > /* output IORT node is the ITS group node (the first node) */ > - build_iort_id_mapping(table_data, 0, 0xFFFF, IORT_NODE_OFFSET); > + build_iort_id_mapping(table_data, 0, 0x10000, IORT_NODE_OFFSET); > } > > /* Table 17 Root Complex Node */ > @@ -419,7 +427,7 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > } > } else { > /* output IORT node is the ITS group node (the first node) */ > - build_iort_id_mapping(table_data, 0, 0xFFFF, IORT_NODE_OFFSET); > + build_iort_id_mapping(table_data, 0, 0x10000, IORT_NODE_OFFSET); > } > > acpi_table_end(linker, &table);
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 04:15:35PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote: > > @@ -209,12 +209,20 @@ static void acpi_dsdt_add_tpm(Aml *scope, VirtMachineState *vms) > > #define ROOT_COMPLEX_ENTRY_SIZE 36 > > #define IORT_NODE_OFFSET 48 > > > > +/* > > + * Input Output Remapping Table (IORT) -- Table 4 ID mapping format > > + * Conforms to "IO Remapping Table System Software on ARM Platforms", > > + * Document number: ARM DEN 0049E.b, Feb 2021 > I would rather explain what the function does, ie append an ID mapping > entry as desribed in Tabble 4 ID Mapping format. > > Also while at it you may use a more recent revision > There is DEN0049E_IO_Remapping_Table_E.f.pdf available Sure. Will do a v4 with something like: +/* + * Append an ID mapping entry as described in "Table 4 ID mapping format" + * from "IO Remapping Table System Software on ARM Platforms", Chapter 3. + * Document number: ARM DEN 0049E.f, Apr 2024 > Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> Thanks for the review! Nicolin
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 02:11:10PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > It's observed that Linux kernel booting with the VM reports a "conflicting > mapping for input ID" FW_BUG. > > The IORT doc defines "Number of IDs" to be "the number of IDs in the range > minus one", while virt-acpi-build.c simply stores the number of IDs in the > id_count without the "minus one". Meanwhile, some of the callers pass in a > 0xFFFF following the spec. So, this is a mismatch between the function and > its callers. > > Fix build_iort_id_mapping() by internally subtracting one from the pass-in > @id_count. Accordingly make sure that all existing callers pass in a value > without the "minus one", i.e. change all 0xFFFFs to 0x10000s. > > Also, add a few lines of comments to highlight this change along with the > referencing document for this build_iort_id_mapping(). > > Fixes: 42e0f050e3a5 ("hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: Add IORT support to bypass SMMUv3") > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com> > --- > Changelog > v3: > * Added "-1" internally in build_iort_id_mapping() instead > * Added comments to highlight this and referencing doc > v2: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240617223945.906996-1-nicolinc@nvidia.com/ > * Moved "-1" to the same line of id_count calculation > * Added "+1" to the next_range.input_base calculation > v1: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240613234802.828265-1-nicolinc@nvidia.com/ > > hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > index c3ccfef026..ee6f56b410 100644 > --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c > @@ -209,12 +209,20 @@ static void acpi_dsdt_add_tpm(Aml *scope, VirtMachineState *vms) > #define ROOT_COMPLEX_ENTRY_SIZE 36 > #define IORT_NODE_OFFSET 48 > > +/* > + * Input Output Remapping Table (IORT) -- Table 4 ID mapping format > + * Conforms to "IO Remapping Table System Software on ARM Platforms", > + * Document number: ARM DEN 0049E.b, Feb 2021 > + * > + * Note that @id_count will be internally subtracted by one, following > + * the IORT spec. > + */ > static void build_iort_id_mapping(GArray *table_data, uint32_t input_base, > uint32_t id_count, uint32_t out_ref) > { > - /* Table 4 ID mapping format */ > build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, input_base, 4); /* Input base */ > - build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, id_count, 4); /* Number of IDs */ > + /* Number of IDs - The number of IDs in the range minus one */ > + build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, id_count - 1, 4); > build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, input_base, 4); /* Output base */ > build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, out_ref, 4); /* Output Reference */ > /* Flags */ > @@ -306,8 +314,8 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > } > > /* Append the last RC -> ITS ID mapping */ > - if (next_range.input_base < 0xFFFF) { > - next_range.id_count = 0xFFFF - next_range.input_base; > + if (next_range.input_base < 0x10000) { > + next_range.id_count = 0x10000 - next_range.input_base; > g_array_append_val(its_idmaps, next_range); > } A change of logic here - I think the new one is right and old one was wrong, actually. Right? > > @@ -366,7 +374,7 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > build_append_int_noprefix(table_data, 0, 4); > > /* output IORT node is the ITS group node (the first node) */ > - build_iort_id_mapping(table_data, 0, 0xFFFF, IORT_NODE_OFFSET); > + build_iort_id_mapping(table_data, 0, 0x10000, IORT_NODE_OFFSET); > } > > /* Table 17 Root Complex Node */ > @@ -419,7 +427,7 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > } > } else { > /* output IORT node is the ITS group node (the first node) */ > - build_iort_id_mapping(table_data, 0, 0xFFFF, IORT_NODE_OFFSET); > + build_iort_id_mapping(table_data, 0, 0x10000, IORT_NODE_OFFSET); > } > > acpi_table_end(linker, &table); > -- > 2.43.0
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 05:14:32PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > @@ -306,8 +314,8 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > > } > > > > /* Append the last RC -> ITS ID mapping */ > > - if (next_range.input_base < 0xFFFF) { > > - next_range.id_count = 0xFFFF - next_range.input_base; > > + if (next_range.input_base < 0x10000) { > > + next_range.id_count = 0x10000 - next_range.input_base; > > g_array_append_val(its_idmaps, next_range); > > } > > A change of logic here - I think the new one is right and old > one was wrong, actually. Right? Sorry, I don't quite follow that question... Doesn't a patch correct an old wrong one to a new right one? Thanks Nicolin
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 02:19:25PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 05:14:32PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > @@ -306,8 +314,8 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > > > } > > > > > > /* Append the last RC -> ITS ID mapping */ > > > - if (next_range.input_base < 0xFFFF) { > > > - next_range.id_count = 0xFFFF - next_range.input_base; > > > + if (next_range.input_base < 0x10000) { > > > + next_range.id_count = 0x10000 - next_range.input_base; > > > g_array_append_val(its_idmaps, next_range); > > > } > > > > A change of logic here - I think the new one is right and old > > one was wrong, actually. Right? > > Sorry, I don't quite follow that question... > > Doesn't a patch correct an old wrong one to a new right one? > > Thanks > Nicolin So if base is 0xFFFF what should happen? I think previously we skipped an entry and that is wrong. So that's another latent bug this patch fixes then? Worth documenting in the commit log too. -- MST
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 05:34:21PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 02:19:25PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 05:14:32PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > @@ -306,8 +314,8 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > > > > } > > > > > > > > /* Append the last RC -> ITS ID mapping */ > > > > - if (next_range.input_base < 0xFFFF) { > > > > - next_range.id_count = 0xFFFF - next_range.input_base; > > > > + if (next_range.input_base < 0x10000) { > > > > + next_range.id_count = 0x10000 - next_range.input_base; > > > > g_array_append_val(its_idmaps, next_range); > > > > } > > > > > > A change of logic here - I think the new one is right and old > > > one was wrong, actually. Right? > > > > Sorry, I don't quite follow that question... > > > > Doesn't a patch correct an old wrong one to a new right one? > > > > Thanks > > Nicolin > > > So if base is 0xFFFF what should happen? I think previously we > skipped an entry and that is wrong. So that's another latent > bug this patch fixes then? > Worth documenting in the commit log too. I had noticed that -- yes, ideally it should have been "<= 0xFFFF". Yet, practically input_base can never be 0xFFFF as it's calculated: hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c:245: .input_base = min_bus << 8, hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c:305: next_range.input_base = idmap->input_base + idmap->id_count; The first one always sets input_base to 0xXX00 (min_bus = 0xXX). The second one, as we know for id_count, must be 0xZZ00 too since input_base from the first place must be 0xXX00 and 0xYY00 hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c:301: next_range.id_count = idmap->input_base - next_range.input_base; So, it's a case that could never be triggered? Probably not worth highlighting IMOH... Thanks Nicolin
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 02:51:41PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 05:34:21PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 02:19:25PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 05:14:32PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > @@ -306,8 +314,8 @@ build_iort(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, VirtMachineState *vms) > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > /* Append the last RC -> ITS ID mapping */ > > > > > - if (next_range.input_base < 0xFFFF) { > > > > > - next_range.id_count = 0xFFFF - next_range.input_base; > > > > > + if (next_range.input_base < 0x10000) { > > > > > + next_range.id_count = 0x10000 - next_range.input_base; > > > > > g_array_append_val(its_idmaps, next_range); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > A change of logic here - I think the new one is right and old > > > > one was wrong, actually. Right? > > > > > > Sorry, I don't quite follow that question... > > > > > > Doesn't a patch correct an old wrong one to a new right one? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Nicolin > > > > > > So if base is 0xFFFF what should happen? I think previously we > > skipped an entry and that is wrong. So that's another latent > > bug this patch fixes then? > > Worth documenting in the commit log too. > > I had noticed that -- yes, ideally it should have been "<= 0xFFFF". > Yet, practically input_base can never be 0xFFFF as it's calculated: > > hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c:245: .input_base = min_bus << 8, > hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c:305: next_range.input_base = idmap->input_base + idmap->id_count; > > The first one always sets input_base to 0xXX00 (min_bus = 0xXX). > The second one, as we know for id_count, must be 0xZZ00 too since > input_base from the first place must be 0xXX00 and 0xYY00 > hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c:301: next_range.id_count = idmap->input_base - next_range.input_base; > > So, it's a case that could never be triggered? Probably not worth > highlighting IMOH... > > Thanks > Nicolin Makes sense.
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.