From: Minwoo Im
The number of virtual functions(VFs) supported in SR-IOV is 64k as per
spec. To test a large number of MSI-X vectors mapping to CPU matrix in
the QEMU system, we need much more than 127 VFs. This patch made
support for 256 VFs per a physical function(PF).
Signed-off-by: Minwoo
From: Minwoo Im
VI and VQ resources cover queue resources in each VFs in SR-IOV.
Current maximum I/O queue pair size is 0x, we can expand them to
cover the full number of I/O queue pairs.
This patch also fixed Identify Secondary Controller List overflow due to
expand of number of secondary c
Hello,
This patchset includes patches for adding Identify data for the
recently added Endurance Group (endgrpid=1) used in FDP, and patches
for increasing the maximum number of SR-IOV VF Resources to support
more resources to enable testing as recent SSDs.
Thanks,
Minwoo Im (3):
hw/nvme: add I
From: Minwoo Im
Commit 73064edfb864 ("hw/nvme: flexible data placement emulation")
intorudced NVMe FDP feature to nvme-subsys and nvme-ctrl with a
single endurance group #1 supported. This means that controller should
return proper identify data to host with Identify Endurance Group List
(CNS 19
On 2024/02/15 1:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 01:07:29AM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2024/02/15 0:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:09:50PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2024/02/14 16:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:1
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 01:07:29AM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> On 2024/02/15 0:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:09:50PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> > > On 2024/02/14 16:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:13:47PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrot
On 2024/02/15 0:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:49:52PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2024/02/14 15:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:13:43PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
The guest may write NumVFs greater than TotalVFs and that can lead
to buffe
On 2024/02/15 0:51, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:32:11PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2024/02/14 15:53, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:13:46PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
I couldn't find such a behavior specified.
Is it fixing a bug or just rem
On 2024/02/15 0:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:09:50PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2024/02/14 16:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:13:47PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
NumVFs may not equal to the current effective number of VFs because VF
Enab
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 06:53:43PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Nope, I don't remember how to request a CVE ;)
https://www.qemu.org/contribute/security-process/
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:49:52PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> On 2024/02/14 15:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:13:43PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> > > The guest may write NumVFs greater than TotalVFs and that can lead
> > > to buffer overflow in VF implementations.
14.02.2024 17:54, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2024/02/14 17:58, Michael Tokarev wrote:
14.02.2024 08:13, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
The guest may write NumVFs greater than TotalVFs and that can lead
to buffer overflow in VF implementations.
This seems to be stable-worthy (Cc'd), and maybe even CVE-wort
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:32:11PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> On 2024/02/14 15:53, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:13:46PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> > > I couldn't find such a behavior specified.
> >
> > Is it fixing a bug or just removing unnecessary code?
> > Is t
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:09:50PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> On 2024/02/14 16:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:13:47PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> > > NumVFs may not equal to the current effective number of VFs because VF
> > > Enable is cleared, NumVFs is set afte
On 2024/02/14 17:58, Michael Tokarev wrote:
14.02.2024 08:13, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
The guest may write NumVFs greater than TotalVFs and that can lead
to buffer overflow in VF implementations.
This seems to be stable-worthy (Cc'd), and maybe even CVE-worthy?
Perhaps so. The scope of the bug i
On 2024/02/14 15:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:13:43PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
The guest may write NumVFs greater than TotalVFs and that can lead
to buffer overflow in VF implementations.
Fixes: 7c0fa8dff811 ("pcie: Add support for Single Root I/O Virtualization
On 2024/02/14 16:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:13:44PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
Disable SR-IOV VF devices by reusing code to power down PCI devices
instead of removing them when the guest requests to disable VFs. This
allows to realize devices and report VF realizat
On 2024/02/14 15:53, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:13:46PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
I couldn't find such a behavior specified.
Is it fixing a bug or just removing unnecessary code?
Is this guest visible at all?
My intention is just to remove unnecessary code, but it
On 2024/02/14 16:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:13:47PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
NumVFs may not equal to the current effective number of VFs because VF
Enable is cleared, NumVFs is set after VF Enable is set, or NumVFs is
greater than TotalVFs.
Fixes: 11871f53ef8e (
From: Bernhard Beschow
The real SuperI/O chips emulated by QEMU allow for relocating and enabling or
disabling their SuperI/O functions via software. So far this is not implemented.
Prepare for that by adding isa_fdc_set_{enabled,iobase}.
Signed-off-by: Bernhard Beschow
Message-Id: <20240114123
From: Bernhard Beschow
FDCtrl::portio_list isn't used inside FDCtrl context but only inside
FDCtrlISABus context, so move it there.
Signed-off-by: Bernhard Beschow
Reviewed-by: BALATON Zoltan
Message-Id: <20240114123911.4877-2-shen...@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin
Signed-off-by:
From: Bernhard Beschow
FDCtrl::iomem isn't used inside FDCtrl context but only inside FDCtrlSysBus
context, so move it there.
Signed-off-by: Bernhard Beschow
Reviewed-by: BALATON Zoltan
Message-Id: <20240114123911.4877-3-shen...@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin
Signed-off-by: Michae
14.02.2024 08:13, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
The guest may write NumVFs greater than TotalVFs and that can lead
to buffer overflow in VF implementations.
This seems to be stable-worthy (Cc'd), and maybe even CVE-worthy?
Thanks,
/mjt
Fixes: 7c0fa8dff811 ("pcie: Add support for Single Root I/O Virt
23 matches
Mail list logo
