Re: [PATCH] kvm: fix to update memslots properly

Chen, Tiejun
2015-03-10T06:17:13Z

On 2015/3/10 4:54, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 09:41:45PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>> index f528343..6e52f3f 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>> @@ -672,6 +672,7 @@ static void update_memslots(struct kvm_memslots *slots,
>>> WARN_ON(mslots[i].id != id);
>>> if (!new->npages) {
>>> new->base_gfn = 0;
>>> + new->flags = 0;
>>> if (mslots[i].npages)
>>> slots->used_slots--;
>>> } else {
>>
>> This should not be necessary. The part of the mslots array that has
>> base_gfn == npages == 0 is entirely unused, and such a slot can never
>> be returned by search_memslots because this:
>>
>> if (gfn >= memslots[slot].base_gfn &&
>> gfn < memslots[slot].base_gfn + memslots[slot].npages)
>>
>> can never be true.
>>
>>> @@ -688,7 +689,9 @@ static void update_memslots(struct kvm_memslots *slots,
>>> i++;
>>> }
>>> while (i > 0 &&
>>> - new->base_gfn > mslots[i - 1].base_gfn) {
>>> + ((new->base_gfn > mslots[i - 1].base_gfn) ||
>>> + (!new->base_gfn &&
>>> + !mslots[i - 1].base_gfn && !mslots[i - 1].npages))) {
>>> mslots[i] = mslots[i - 1];
>>> slots->id_to_index[mslots[i].id] = i;
>>> i--;
>>>
>>
>> You should have explained _why_ this fixes the bug, and what invariant
>> is not being respected, something like this:
>>
>> kvm: fix sorting of memslots with base_gfn == 0
>>
>> Before commit 0e60b0799fed (kvm: change memslot sorting rule from size
>> to GFN, 2014-12-01), the memslots' sorting key was npages, meaning
>> that a valid memslot couldn't have its sorting key equal to zero.
>> On the other hand, a valid memslot can have base_gfn == 0, and invalid
>> memslots are identified by base_gfn == npages == 0.
>>
>> Because of this, commit 0e60b0799fed broke the invariant that invalid
>> memslots are at the end of the mslots array. When a memslot with
>> base_gfn == 0 was created, any invalid memslot before it were left
>> in place.
>>
>> This suggests another fix. We can change the insertion to use a ">="
>> comparison, as in your first patch. Alone it is not correct, but we
>> only need to take some care and avoid breaking the case of deleting a
>> memslot.
>>
>> It's enough to wrap the second loop (that you patched) with
>> "if (new->npages)". In the new->npages == 0 case the first loop has
>> already set i to the right value, and moving i back would be wrong:
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> index f5283438ee05..050974c051b5 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> @@ -687,11 +687,23 @@ static void update_memslots(struct kvm_memslots *slots,
>> slots->id_to_index[mslots[i].id] = i;
>> i++;
>> }
>> - while (i > 0 &&
>> - new->base_gfn > mslots[i - 1].base_gfn) {
>> - mslots[i] = mslots[i - 1];
>> - slots->id_to_index[mslots[i].id] = i;
>> - i--;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * The ">=" is needed when creating a slot with base_gfn == 0,
>> + * so that it moves before all those with base_gfn == npages == 0.
>> + *
>> + * On the other hand, if new->npages is zero, the above loop has
>> + * already left i pointing to the beginning of the empty part of
>> + * mslots, and the ">=" would move the hole backwards in this
>> + * case---which is wrong. So skip the loop when deleting a slot.
>> + */
>> + if (new->npages) {
>> + while (i > 0 &&
>> + new->base_gfn >= mslots[i - 1].base_gfn) {
>> + mslots[i] = mslots[i - 1];
>> + slots->id_to_index[mslots[i].id] = i;
>> + i--;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> mslots[i] = *new;
>>
>> Paolo
>
> Paolo,
>
> Can you include a proper changelog for this patch?
>

But this is already applied long time ago...

Tiejun