From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: seanjc@google.com, pbonzini@redhat.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Don't treat fully writable SPTEs as volatile" failed to apply to 4.14-stable tree
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 10:28:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1652084905101184@kroah.com> (raw)
The patch below does not apply to the 4.14-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 706c9c55e5a32800605eb6a864ef6e1ca0c6c179 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 03:47:41 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Don't treat fully writable SPTEs as volatile
(modulo A/D)
Don't treat SPTEs that are truly writable, i.e. writable in hardware, as
being volatile (unless they're volatile for other reasons, e.g. A/D bits).
KVM _sets_ the WRITABLE bit out of mmu_lock, but never _clears_ the bit
out of mmu_lock, so if the WRITABLE bit is set, it cannot magically get
cleared just because the SPTE is MMU-writable.
Rename the wrapper of MMU-writable to be more literal, the previous name
of spte_can_locklessly_be_made_writable() is wrong and misleading.
Fixes: c7ba5b48cc8d ("KVM: MMU: fast path of handling guest page fault")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Message-Id: <20220423034752.1161007-2-seanjc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
index 64a2a7e2be90..48dcb6a782f4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -484,13 +484,15 @@ static bool spte_has_volatile_bits(u64 spte)
* also, it can help us to get a stable is_writable_pte()
* to ensure tlb flush is not missed.
*/
- if (spte_can_locklessly_be_made_writable(spte) ||
- is_access_track_spte(spte))
+ if (!is_writable_pte(spte) && is_mmu_writable_spte(spte))
+ return true;
+
+ if (is_access_track_spte(spte))
return true;
if (spte_ad_enabled(spte)) {
- if ((spte & shadow_accessed_mask) == 0 ||
- (is_writable_pte(spte) && (spte & shadow_dirty_mask) == 0))
+ if (!(spte & shadow_accessed_mask) ||
+ (is_writable_pte(spte) && !(spte & shadow_dirty_mask)))
return true;
}
@@ -557,7 +559,7 @@ static bool mmu_spte_update(u64 *sptep, u64 new_spte)
* we always atomically update it, see the comments in
* spte_has_volatile_bits().
*/
- if (spte_can_locklessly_be_made_writable(old_spte) &&
+ if (is_mmu_writable_spte(old_spte) &&
!is_writable_pte(new_spte))
flush = true;
@@ -1187,7 +1189,7 @@ static bool spte_write_protect(u64 *sptep, bool pt_protect)
u64 spte = *sptep;
if (!is_writable_pte(spte) &&
- !(pt_protect && spte_can_locklessly_be_made_writable(spte)))
+ !(pt_protect && is_mmu_writable_spte(spte)))
return false;
rmap_printk("spte %p %llx\n", sptep, *sptep);
@@ -3196,8 +3198,7 @@ static int fast_page_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
* be removed in the fast path only if the SPTE was
* write-protected for dirty-logging or access tracking.
*/
- if (fault->write &&
- spte_can_locklessly_be_made_writable(spte)) {
+ if (fault->write && is_mmu_writable_spte(spte)) {
new_spte |= PT_WRITABLE_MASK;
/*
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
index e4abeb5df1b1..c571784cb567 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
@@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ static inline void check_spte_writable_invariants(u64 spte)
"kvm: Writable SPTE is not MMU-writable: %llx", spte);
}
-static inline bool spte_can_locklessly_be_made_writable(u64 spte)
+static inline bool is_mmu_writable_spte(u64 spte)
{
return spte & shadow_mmu_writable_mask;
}
reply other threads:[~2022-05-09 8:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1652084905101184@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.