Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: arm64: Don't serialize if the access flag isn't set

Marc Zyngier
2022-11-30T08:21:45Z

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 01:23:20 +0000,
Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 09:15:21PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > Hi Ricardo,
> >
> > Thanks for having a look.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:52:12PM -0800, Ricardo Koller wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 07:19:44PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > + ret = stage2_update_leaf_attrs(pgt, addr, 1, KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S2_AF, 0,
> > > > + &pte, NULL, 0);
> > > > + if (!ret)
> > > > + dsb(ishst);
> > >
> > > At the moment, the only reason for stage2_update_leaf_attrs() to not
> > > update the PTE is if it's not valid:
> > >
> > > if (!kvm_pte_valid(pte))
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > I guess you could check that as well:
> > >
> > > + if (!ret || kvm_pte_valid(pte))
> > > + dsb(ishst);
> >
> > Thanks for catching this.
> >
> > Instead of pivoting on the returned PTE value, how about we return
> > -EAGAIN from the early return in stage2_attr_walker()? It would better
> > match the pattern used elsewhere in the pgtable code.
>
> That works, although I would use another return code (e.g., EINVAL)? as
> that's not exactly a "try again" type of error.

EINVAL usually is an indication of something that went horribly wrong.

But is that really a failure mode? Here, failing to update the PTE
should not be considered a failure, but just a benign race: access
fault being taken on a CPU and the page being evicted on another (not
unlikely, as the page was marked old before).

And if I'm correct above, this is definitely a "try again" situation:
you probably won't take the same type of fault the second time though.

Thanks,

M.

--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.