kvm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: gleb@kernel.org, avi.kivity@gmail.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] KVM: MMU: flush tlb out of mmu lock when write-protect the sptes
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:51:37 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140409145137.GA23449@amt.cnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1394460109-3150-6-git-send-email-xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:01:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Now we can flush all the TLBs out of the mmu lock without TLB corruption when
> write-proect the sptes, it is because:
> - we have marked large sptes readonly instead of dropping them that means we
>   just change the spte from writable to readonly so that we only need to care
>   the case of changing spte from present to present (changing the spte from
>   present to nonpresent will flush all the TLBs immediately), in other words,
>   the only case we need to care is mmu_spte_update()
> 
> - in mmu_spte_update(), we haved checked
>   SPTE_HOST_WRITEABLE | PTE_MMU_WRITEABLE instead of PT_WRITABLE_MASK, that
>   means it does not depend on PT_WRITABLE_MASK anymore
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>  3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> index 17bb136..01a8c35 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -4281,15 +4281,32 @@ void kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(struct kvm *kvm, int slot)
>  			if (*rmapp)
>  				__rmap_write_protect(kvm, rmapp, false);
>  
> -			if (need_resched() || spin_needbreak(&kvm->mmu_lock)) {
> -				kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
> +			if (need_resched() || spin_needbreak(&kvm->mmu_lock))
>  				cond_resched_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> -			}
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
>  	spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access() and kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log()
> +	 * which do tlb flush out of mmu-lock should be serialized by
> +	 * kvm->slots_lock otherwise tlb flush would be missed.
> +	 */
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->slots_lock);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We can flush all the TLBs out of the mmu lock without TLB
> +	 * corruption since we just change the spte from writable to
> +	 * readonly so that we only need to care the case of changing
> +	 * spte from present to present (changing the spte from present
> +	 * to nonpresent will flush all the TLBs immediately), in other
> +	 * words, the only case we care is mmu_spte_update() where we
> +	 * haved checked SPTE_HOST_WRITEABLE | SPTE_MMU_WRITEABLE
> +	 * instead of PT_WRITABLE_MASK, that means it does not depend
> +	 * on PT_WRITABLE_MASK anymore.
> +	 */
> +	kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
>  }
>  
>  #define BATCH_ZAP_PAGES	10
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.h
> index 2926152..585d6b1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.h
> @@ -96,6 +96,20 @@ static inline int is_present_gpte(unsigned long pte)
>  	return pte & PT_PRESENT_MASK;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Please note PT_WRITABLE_MASK is not stable since
> + * 1) fast_page_fault() sets spte from readonly to writable out of mmu-lock or
> + * 2) kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access() and kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log()
> + *    can write protect sptes but flush tlb out mmu-lock that means we may use
> + *    the corrupt tlb entries which depend on this bit.
> + *
> + * Both cases do not modify the status of  spte_is_locklessly_modifiable() so
> + * if you want to check whether the spte is writable on MMU you can check
> + * SPTE_MMU_WRITEABLE instead. If you want to update spte without losing
> + * A/D bits and tlb flush, you can check spte_is_locklessly_modifiable()
> + * instead. See the comments in spte_has_volatile_bits() and
> + * mmu_spte_update().
> + */
>  static inline int is_writable_pte(unsigned long pte)
>  {

Xiao,

Can't get the SPTE_MMU_WRITEABLE part.

So assume you are writing code to perform some action after guest memory
has been write protected. You would

spin_lock(mmu_lock);

if (writeable spte bit is set)
    remove writeable spte bit from spte
remote TLB flush            (*)
action

spin_unlock(mmu_lock);

(*) is necessary because reading the writeable spte bit as zero
does not guarantee remote TLBs have been flushed.

Now what SPTE_MMU_WRITEABLE has to do with it ?

Perhaps a recipe like that (or just the rules) would be useful.

The remaining patches look good.

  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-09 14:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-10 14:01 [PATCH v4 0/5] KVM: x86: flush tlb out of mmu-lock after write protection Xiao Guangrong
2014-03-10 14:01 ` [PATCH 1/5] Revert "KVM: Simplify kvm->tlbs_dirty handling" Xiao Guangrong
2014-03-10 14:01 ` [PATCH 2/5] KVM: MMU: properly check last spte in fast_page_fault() Xiao Guangrong
2014-03-10 14:01 ` [PATCH 3/5] KVM: MMU: lazily drop large spte Xiao Guangrong
2014-03-10 14:01 ` [PATCH 4/5] KVM: MMU: flush tlb if the spte can be locklessly modified Xiao Guangrong
2014-03-10 14:01 ` [PATCH 5/5] KVM: MMU: flush tlb out of mmu lock when write-protect the sptes Xiao Guangrong
2014-04-09 14:51   ` Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
2014-04-15 11:11     ` Xiao Guangrong
2014-03-25  3:29 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] KVM: x86: flush tlb out of mmu-lock after write protection Xiao Guangrong
2014-03-25 10:22   ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-03-25 16:25 ` Hu Yaohui
2014-03-26  4:40   ` Hu Yaohui
2014-03-26  5:07     ` Xiao Guangrong
2014-03-26  5:30       ` Hu Yaohui
2014-03-26  4:54   ` Xiao Guangrong

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=20140409145137.GA23449@amt.cnet \
    --to=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=avi.kivity@gmail.com \
    --cc=gleb@kernel.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).