From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
"open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR MIPS \(KVM/mips\)"
<kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR MIPS \(KVM/mips\)"
<linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
"open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR RISC-V \(KVM/riscv\)"
<kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com,
"moderated list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR ARM64 \(KVM/arm64\)"
<kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>, Peter Feiner <pfeiner@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Allow for NULL vcpu pointer in __kvm_mmu_get_shadow_page()
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 23:33:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YnRerE5+FpwkUdQE@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220422210546.458943-12-dmatlack@google.com>
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> Allow the vcpu pointer in __kvm_mmu_get_shadow_page() to be NULL. Rename
> it to vcpu_or_null to prevent future commits from accidentally taking
> dependency on it without first considering the NULL case.
>
> The vcpu pointer is only used for syncing indirect shadow pages in
> kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page(). A vcpu pointer it not required for
> correctness since unsync pages can simply be zapped. But this should
> never occur in practice, since the only use-case for passing a NULL vCPU
> pointer is eager page splitting which will only request direct shadow
> pages (which can never be unsync).
>
> Even though __kvm_mmu_get_shadow_page() can gracefully handle a NULL
> vcpu, add a WARN() that will fire if __kvm_mmu_get_shadow_page() is ever
> called to get an indirect shadow page with a NULL vCPU pointer, since
> zapping unsync SPs is a performance overhead that should be considered.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index 04029c01aebd..21407bd4435a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -1845,16 +1845,27 @@ static void kvm_mmu_commit_zap_page(struct kvm *kvm,
> &(_kvm)->arch.mmu_page_hash[kvm_page_table_hashfn(_gfn)]) \
> if ((_sp)->gfn != (_gfn) || (_sp)->role.direct) {} else
>
> -static int kvm_sync_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
> - struct list_head *invalid_list)
> +static int __kvm_sync_page(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu_or_null,
> + struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
> + struct list_head *invalid_list)
> {
> - int ret = vcpu->arch.mmu->sync_page(vcpu, sp);
> + int ret = -1;
> +
> + if (vcpu_or_null)
This should never happen. I like the idea of warning early, but I really don't
like that the WARN is far removed from the code that actually depends on @vcpu
being non-NULL. Case in point, KVM should have bailed on the WARN and never
reached this point. And the inner __kvm_sync_page() is completely unnecessary.
I also don't love the vcpu_or_null terminology; I get the intent, but it doesn't
really help because understand why/when it's NULL.
I played around with casting, e.g. to/from an unsigned long or void *, to prevent
usage, but that doesn't work very well because 'unsigned long' ends up being
awkward/confusing, and 'void *' is easily lost on a function call. And both
lose type safety :-(
All in all, I think I'd prefer this patch to simply be a KVM_BUG_ON() if
kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page() encounters an unsync page. Less churn, and IMO there's
no real loss in robustness, e.g. we'd really have to screw up code review and
testing to introduce a null vCPU pointer dereference in this code.
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
index 3d102522804a..5aed9265f592 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -2041,6 +2041,13 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page(struct kvm *kvm,
goto out;
if (sp->unsync) {
+ /*
+ * Getting indirect shadow pages without a vCPU pointer
+ * is not supported, i.e. this should never happen.
+ */
+ if (KVM_BUG_ON(!vcpu, kvm))
+ break;
+
/*
* The page is good, but is stale. kvm_sync_page does
* get the latest guest state, but (unlike mmu_unsync_children)
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-05 23:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-22 21:05 [PATCH v4 00/20] KVM: Extend Eager Page Splitting to the shadow MMU David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 01/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Optimize MMU page cache lookup for all direct SPs David Matlack
2022-05-07 7:46 ` Lai Jiangshan
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 02/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Use a bool for direct David Matlack
2022-05-07 7:46 ` Lai Jiangshan
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 03/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Derive shadow MMU page role from parent David Matlack
2022-05-05 21:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-09 22:10 ` David Matlack
2022-05-10 2:38 ` Lai Jiangshan
2022-05-07 8:28 ` Lai Jiangshan
2022-05-09 21:04 ` David Matlack
2022-05-10 2:58 ` Lai Jiangshan
2022-05-10 13:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-12 16:10 ` David Matlack
2022-05-13 18:26 ` David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 04/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Decompose kvm_mmu_get_page() into separate functions David Matlack
2022-05-05 21:58 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 05/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Consolidate shadow page allocation and initialization David Matlack
2022-05-05 22:10 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-09 20:53 ` David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 06/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Rename shadow MMU functions that deal with shadow pages David Matlack
2022-05-05 22:15 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 07/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Move guest PT write-protection to account_shadowed() David Matlack
2022-05-05 22:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-09 21:18 ` David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 08/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Pass memory caches to allocate SPs separately David Matlack
2022-05-05 23:00 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 09/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Replace vcpu with kvm in kvm_mmu_alloc_shadow_page() David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 10/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Pass kvm pointer separately from vcpu to kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page() David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 11/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Allow for NULL vcpu pointer in __kvm_mmu_get_shadow_page() David Matlack
2022-05-05 23:33 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2022-05-09 21:26 ` David Matlack
2022-05-09 22:56 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-09 23:59 ` David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 12/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Pass const memslot to rmap_add() David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 13/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Decouple rmap_add() and link_shadow_page() from kvm_vcpu David Matlack
2022-05-05 23:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-09 21:27 ` David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 14/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Update page stats in __rmap_add() David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 15/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Cache the access bits of shadowed translations David Matlack
2022-05-06 19:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-09 16:10 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-09 21:29 ` David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 16/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Extend make_huge_page_split_spte() for the shadow MMU David Matlack
2022-05-09 16:22 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-09 21:31 ` David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 17/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Zap collapsible SPTEs at all levels in " David Matlack
2022-05-09 16:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-09 21:34 ` David Matlack
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 18/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Refactor drop_large_spte() David Matlack
2022-05-09 16:36 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 19/20] KVM: Allow for different capacities in kvm_mmu_memory_cache structs David Matlack
2022-04-23 8:08 ` kernel test robot
2022-04-24 15:21 ` kernel test robot
2022-04-22 21:05 ` [PATCH v4 20/20] KVM: x86/mmu: Extend Eager Page Splitting to nested MMUs David Matlack
2022-05-07 7:51 ` Lai Jiangshan
2022-05-09 21:40 ` David Matlack
2022-05-09 16:48 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-09 21:44 ` David Matlack
2022-05-09 22:47 ` Sean Christopherson
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=YnRerE5+FpwkUdQE@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=bgardon@google.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=pfeiner@google.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