Linux KVM/arm64 development list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oliver Upton <oupton@kernel.org>
To: Leonardo Bras <leo.bras@arm.com>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	Wei-Lin Chang <weilin.chang@arm.com>,
	Steffen Eiden <seiden@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Only shadow writable-dirty guest descs as writable
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 14:39:23 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <arGkC3uv6z7z5d8K@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <arFgiKnNTds9p1a7@LeoBrasDK>

On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 05:51:20PM +0100, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > index 07bd1e3ae9fb..f35c4ce95473 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > @@ -1572,7 +1572,7 @@ static int topup_mmu_memcache(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, void *memcache)
> >  static enum kvm_pgtable_prot adjust_nested_fault_perms(struct kvm_s2_trans *nested,
> >  						       enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot)
> >  {
> > -	if (!nested->writable)
> > +	if (!(nested->writable && nested->dirty))
> >  		prot &= ~KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W;
> 
> So if the page gets prot_w if it's either writable or dirty, or both.
> Humm, since we should _not_ have a dirty page that is not writable, that 
> could be fine. But then, why test the dirty?
> 
> Maybe we should have a KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_D (dirty) as well? 

The reasoning here requires zooming out and looking at the full flow of
a nested stage-2 abort.

Suppose an L2 takes a translation fault for an address that is missing
from the shadow stage-2. L0 KVM walks the L1 page tables and arrives at
a writable-clean descriptor for the fault address. That descriptor gets
shadowed into L0 KVM's shadow stage-2 MMU. Since L0 KVM relies on taking
a permission fault to set the dirty state in the L1 page tables, we can
only install a read-only translation in the shadow stage-2.

Prematurely granting write access would be architecturally incorrect
since the L1 descriptor would remain in a writable-clean state. In the
same vein, setting the page with DBM=1 in the shadow stage-2 would be
incorrect since hardware will relax it to writable-dirty without an
intervening fault that can be used to fix the L1 descriptor.

> >  	if (!nested->readable)
> >  		prot &= ~KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_R;
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c
> > index b247bc1d83fa..dcc7d0cc7c95 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c
> > @@ -269,6 +269,8 @@ static void compute_s2_permissions(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct s2_walk_info *w
> >  
> >  	trans->readable = s2ap & BIT(0);
> >  	trans->writable = s2ap & BIT(1);
> > +
> > +	trans->dirty = ws->desc & BIT(7);
> >  }
> 
> IIUC, both writable and dirty here will always have the same value, as they 
> both are set based in the same bit in ws->desc.
> 
> Maybe this is intended, but then it's a bit confusing they are not 
> both using the s2ap variable.

This is intentional, although this series gives an incomplete picture.

I am separately tracking the dirty state of the descriptor in
anticipation of FEAT_S2PIE support for nested. It just so happens that
in the direct permission model the 'write' and 'dirty' bits are aliased
to the same single bit.

> Another point here is that the actual writable bit should be DBM, at least 
> in some scenarios, but this discussion can be contended in the New PTE 
> patchset. 
> 
> Also, nits: 
> - any reason for the newline between writable and dirty?
> - should not KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S2_S2AP_W be used instead of BIT[7] in 
> this patch, as it makes more clear what we are checking?

Same thing here: these are both intentional changes in preparation for
supporting direct and indirect permission models at stage-2.

Thanks,
Oliver

  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-21 21:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-23 18:41 [PATCH 00/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Implement FEAT_HAFDBS, FEAT_HAFT Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 01/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Introduce struct for stage-2 walk step Oliver Upton
2026-09-21 11:30   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 02/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Consolidate computation of stage-2 permissions Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 18:57   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-21 13:46   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-09-21 21:28     ` Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 03/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Get rid of kvm_s2_trans*() accessors Oliver Upton
2026-09-21 16:18   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 04/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Only shadow writable-dirty guest descs as writable Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 18:58   ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-23 20:05     ` Oliver Upton
2026-09-21 16:51   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-09-21 21:39     ` Oliver Upton [this message]
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 05/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Pass an access descriptor for stage-2 walks Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 19:06   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-21 17:28   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-09-21 21:45     ` Oliver Upton
2026-09-22 14:24       ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 06/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Use a helper for stage-2 descriptor updates Oliver Upton
2026-09-22 16:14   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-09-22 16:31     ` Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 07/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Set dirty state at stage-2 Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 19:03   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 16:50   ` Wei-Lin Chang
2026-07-08  7:35     ` Oliver Upton
2026-09-23 14:09   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-09-23 16:46     ` Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 08/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Treat DBM as writable " Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 18:55   ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-23 20:08     ` Oliver Upton
2026-09-23 14:38   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-09-23 17:16     ` Oliver Upton
2026-09-24 17:22       ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 09/22] KVM: arm64: Compute S1 permissions as part of s1_walk() Oliver Upton
2026-09-23 15:47   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 10/22] KVM: arm64: Plumb through access descriptor for stage-1 Oliver Upton
2026-09-23 16:21   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-09-23 20:37     ` Oliver Upton
2026-09-25 11:10       ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 11/22] KVM: arm64: Use a struct for stage-1 walk context Oliver Upton
2026-09-23 17:03   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-09-23 20:23     ` Oliver Upton
2026-09-25 11:20       ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 12/22] KVM: arm64: Create helper for stage-1 descriptor updates Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 18:55   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-25 14:35   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 13/22] KVM: arm64: Set dirty state at stage-1 Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 18:54   ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-26 15:49   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-26 16:03     ` Marc Zyngier
2026-06-29 10:38       ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-26 17:35     ` Oliver Upton
2026-06-29 10:39       ` Leonardo Bras
2026-09-25 15:07   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 14/22] KVM: arm64: Grant write permission when DBM is set at S1 Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 18:57   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-25 15:18   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 15/22] KVM: arm64: Don't update descriptors for "non-arch" access Oliver Upton
2026-09-25 15:51   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 16/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Expose FEAT_HAFDBS Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 19:01   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-25 15:53   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 17/22] KVM: arm64: Set Access flag on table descriptors at stage-1 Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 20:56   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-28 14:33   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 18/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Set access flag on table descriptors at stage-2 Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 19:05   ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-23 20:14     ` Oliver Upton
2026-09-28 14:40   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 19/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Expose FEAT_HAFT Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 19:05   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-28 14:42   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:41 ` [PATCH 20/22] KVM: arm64: selftests: Only test AF behavior for emulated AT insns Oliver Upton
2026-09-28 16:01   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:42 ` [PATCH 21/22] KVM: arm64: selftests: Test AT emulation for FEAT_HAFT Oliver Upton
2026-06-23 19:05   ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-23 20:17     ` Oliver Upton
2026-09-28 17:06   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-23 18:42 ` [PATCH 22/22] HACK: KVM: arm64: nv: Set the dirty state for CMOs that fetch for write Oliver Upton
2026-07-01 10:16   ` Wei-Lin Chang
2026-07-01 17:33     ` Oliver Upton
2026-07-02  6:50       ` Wei-Lin Chang
2026-09-28 17:21   ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-26 15:31 ` [PATCH 00/22] KVM: arm64: nv: Implement FEAT_HAFDBS, FEAT_HAFT Leonardo Bras
2026-06-26 17:12   ` Marc Zyngier
2026-06-26 17:45     ` Oliver Upton
2026-06-29 10:37       ` Leonardo Bras
2026-06-29 10:29     ` Leonardo Bras
2026-09-18 14:55 ` Leonardo Bras

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=arGkC3uv6z7z5d8K@kernel.org \
    --to=oupton@kernel.org \
    --cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=leo.bras@arm.com \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=seiden@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=weilin.chang@arm.com \
    --cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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