From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA51DC4332F for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 01:04:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235997AbiLWBE1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2022 20:04:27 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39898 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235968AbiLWBEB (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2022 20:04:01 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83CCC3B413 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2022 17:00:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id m4so3580343pls.4 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2022 17:00:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9fNngnnpE2StonojfqQey1eQCIEtpFm3j4CmrqaN8gA=; b=bqqhyt59RZ5/7uexDzRRAXepjZVuBZumLQVNbYyYwnmJdFK5uPPDp136NtYUkMl8go ETJ/ONXb/ZNy3XuM0z+SLweQdxyzTr2v2qvLkD8QmYr7hwB4ah5TedSe+7a4byts+8fR AUWCsJEPQEtoT7H+WF27A2LC9+h/fp8rHpITGkFHCfcUKDnGlWmi0YS9sZ0KVL+ZvcCl 8aBhox831l2QBwyqKlHZizYh+NMC9xTjjkXtZRYt8NiTVkXn/TEmpDsxCgQj9629oAeh xNcnNXpCv4lrcogZAoUdn3ob2yDSRnWdYWCUAYnAuD81ohkCSwmDlKPPh3YOQ2hmUB6j jTew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=9fNngnnpE2StonojfqQey1eQCIEtpFm3j4CmrqaN8gA=; b=F8fMAIIS2CPSu16am8TGlIJS//PfIFF3K2JFDoMlQYsUwVGSFsKHnqZ6LGJMEtWS14 ahkuHgyEmHIXtqykS3Hpca7uDeNjlELxpE2inlL2TGM+/iOLeEwNXxDwLNIqbycgjMN1 HI9PGCFs2K7S7XQJDRo0NVkKQ6rf0mbG+rU+QU5j09bwpDvCq430k7lcoDjNxqoIhIOL BuAjmyg/g31UrCHyksOG+oRYvA8h2r8DoaL92nIi2ipyDDqIexS5irsIf6MGpJoeQjCB pUYy6+b693lOUe4mRPRRHypbrN6/s/XlnPe73BbxTrIcTDSLOuI87BPDwICLQ7EBsjmT 8jww== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2koK9442uO8sOGtn7fGuQphu2p/bGNHvONJF+W2zXJFXmE/SazrS qkCUeISnhCqu97N68HikhVD8oeVI9nztMXtl X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXtKUNrR6zj/7PH2VEbsItoUuVA4yZcHcLe5RCHjCNX53q/K79iy62BAlgWiKIhyuf9E98mKsQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a608:b0:189:b910:c6d2 with SMTP id u8-20020a170902a60800b00189b910c6d2mr1164911plq.1.1671757207187; Thu, 22 Dec 2022 17:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com (220.181.82.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.82.181.220]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s7-20020a170902988700b0018f6e4e425dsm1088195plp.198.2022.12.22.17.00.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 22 Dec 2022 17:00:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 17:00:03 -0800 From: Ricardo Koller To: Oliver Upton Cc: Marc Zyngier , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: arm64: Handle S1PTW translation with TCR_HA set as a write Message-ID: References: <20221220200923.1532710-1-maz@kernel.org> <20221220200923.1532710-3-maz@kernel.org> <86ili3byn8.wl-maz@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 08:58:40PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 09:01:15AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 17:46:24 +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > > > - When UFFD is in use, translation faults are reported to userspace as > > > writes when from a RW memslot and reads when from an RO memslot. > > > > Not quite: translation faults are reported as reads if TCR_EL1.HA > > isn't set, and as writes if it is. Ignoring TCR_EL1.HD for a moment, > > this matches exactly the behaviour of the page-table walker, which > > will update the S1 PTs only if this bit is set. > > My bad, yes you're right. I conflated the use case here with the > architectural state. > > I'm probably being way too pedantic, but I just wanted to make sure we > agree about the ensuing subtlety. More below: > > > Or is it what userfaultfd does on its own? That'd be confusing... > > > > > > > > - S1 page table memory is spuriously marked as dirty, as we presume a > > > write immediately follows the translation fault. That isn't entirely > > > senseless, as it would mean both the target page and the S1 PT that > > > maps it are both old. This is nothing new I suppose, just weird. > > > > s/old/young/ ? > > > > I think you're confusing the PT access with the access that caused the > > PT access (I'll have that printed on a t-shirt, thank you very much). > > I'd buy it! > > > Here, we're not considering the cause of the PT access anymore. If > > TCR_EL1.HA is set, the S1 PT page will be marked as accessed even on a > > read, and only that page. > > I think this is where the disconnect might be. TCR_EL1.HA == 1 suggests > a write could possibly follow, but I don't think it requires it. The > page table walker must first load the S1 PTE before writing to it. > > From AArch64.S1Translate() (DDI0487H.a): > > (fault, descaddress, walkstate, descriptor) = AArch64.S1Walk(fault, walkparams, va, regime, > ss, acctype, iswrite, ispriv); > > [...] > > new_desc = descriptor; > if walkparams.ha == '1' && AArch64.FaultAllowsSetAccessFlag(fault) then > // Set descriptor AF bit > new_desc<10> = '1'; > > [...] > > // Either the access flag was clear or AP<2> is set > if new_desc != descriptor then > if regime == Regime_EL10 && EL2Enabled() then > s1aarch64 = TRUE; > s2fs1walk = TRUE; > aligned = TRUE; > iswrite = TRUE; > (s2fault, descupdateaddress) = AArch64.S2Translate(fault, descaddress, s1aarch64, > ss, s2fs1walk, AccType_ATOMICRW, > aligned, iswrite, ispriv); > > if s2fault.statuscode != Fault_None then > return (s2fault, AddressDescriptor UNKNOWN); > else > descupdateaddress = descaddress; > > (fault, mem_desc) = AArch64.MemSwapTableDesc(fault, descriptor, new_desc, > walkparams.ee, descupdateaddress) > > Buried in AArch64.S1Walk() is a stage-2 walk for a read to fetch the > descriptor. The second stage-2 walk for write is conditioned on having > already fetched the stage-1 descriptor and determining the AF needs > to be set. > > Relating back to UFFD: if we expect KVM to do exactly what hardware > does, UFFD should see an attempted read when the first walk fails > because of an S2 translation fault. Based on this patch, though, we'd > promote it to a write if TCR_EL1.HA == 1. > > This has the additional nuance of marking the S1 PT's IPA as dirty, even > though it might not actually have been written to. Having said that, > the false positive rate should be negligible given that S1 PTs ought to > account for a small amount of guest memory. Another false positive is TCR_EL1.HA == 1 and having the AF bit set in the PTE. This results on a write, when I don't think it should. > > Like I said before, I'm probably being unnecessarily pedantic :) It just > seems to me that the view we're giving userspace of S1PTW aborts isn't > exactly architectural and I want to make sure that is explicitly > intentional. > > -- > Thanks, > Oliver