Re: [PATCH v7 12/14] KVM: Handle page fault for private memory

Chao Peng
2022-08-03T09:57:01Z

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 08:58:41PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2022, Chao Peng wrote:
> > A page fault can carry the private/shared information for
> > KVM_MEM_PRIVATE memslot, this can be filled by architecture code(like
> > TDX code). To handle page fault for such access, KVM maps the page only
> > when this private property matches the host's view on the page.
> >
> > For a successful match, private pfn is obtained with memfile_notifier
> > callbacks from private fd and shared pfn is obtained with existing
> > get_user_pages.
> >
> > For a failed match, KVM causes a KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT exit to
> > userspace. Userspace then can convert memory between private/shared from
> > host's view then retry the access.
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h | 18 ++++++++++
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmutrace.h | 1 +
> > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-
> > 4 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > index 545eb74305fe..27dbdd4fe8d1 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > @@ -3004,6 +3004,9 @@ int kvm_mmu_max_mapping_level(struct kvm *kvm,
> > if (max_level == PG_LEVEL_4K)
> > return PG_LEVEL_4K;
> >
> > + if (kvm_mem_is_private(kvm, gfn))
> > + return max_level;
> > +
> > host_level = host_pfn_mapping_level(kvm, gfn, pfn, slot);
> > return min(host_level, max_level);
> > }
> > @@ -4101,10 +4104,52 @@ void kvm_arch_async_page_ready(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_async_pf *work)
> > kvm_mmu_do_page_fault(vcpu, work->cr2_or_gpa, 0, true);
> > }
> >
> > +static inline u8 order_to_level(int order)
> > +{
> > + enum pg_level level;
> > +
> > + for (level = KVM_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL; level > PG_LEVEL_4K; level--)
>
> Curly braces needed for the for-loop.
>
> And I think it makes sense to take in the fault->max_level, that way this is
> slightly more performant when the guest mapping is smaller than the host, e.g.
>
> for (level = max_level; level > PG_LEVEL_4K; level--)
> ...
>
> return level;
>
> Though I think I'd vote to avoid a loop entirely and do:
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON(KVM_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL > PG_LEVEL_1G);
>
> if (order > ???)
> return PG_LEVEL_1G;
>
> if (order > ???)
> return PG_LEVEL_2M;
>
> return PG_LEVEL_4K;

Sounds good.

>
>
> > + if (order >= page_level_shift(level) - PAGE_SHIFT)
> > + return level;
> > + return level;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int kvm_faultin_pfn_private(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > + struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
> > +{
> > + int order;
> > + struct kvm_memory_slot *slot = fault->slot;
> > + bool private_exist = kvm_mem_is_private(vcpu->kvm, fault->gfn);
> > +
> > + if (fault->is_private != private_exist) {
> > + vcpu->run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT;
> > + if (fault->is_private)
> > + vcpu->run->memory.flags = KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_PRIVATE;
> > + else
> > + vcpu->run->memory.flags = 0;
> > + vcpu->run->memory.padding = 0;
> > + vcpu->run->memory.gpa = fault->gfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + vcpu->run->memory.size = PAGE_SIZE;
> > + return RET_PF_USER;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (fault->is_private) {
> > + if (kvm_private_mem_get_pfn(slot, fault->gfn, &fault->pfn, &order))
> > + return RET_PF_RETRY;
> > + fault->max_level = min(order_to_level(order), fault->max_level);
> > + fault->map_writable = !(slot->flags & KVM_MEM_READONLY);
> > + return RET_PF_FIXED;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Fault is shared, fallthrough. */
> > + return RET_PF_CONTINUE;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int kvm_faultin_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
> > {
> > struct kvm_memory_slot *slot = fault->slot;
> > bool async;
> > + int r;
> >
> > /*
> > * Retry the page fault if the gfn hit a memslot that is being deleted
> > @@ -4133,6 +4178,12 @@ static int kvm_faultin_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
> > return RET_PF_EMULATE;
> > }
> >
> > + if (kvm_slot_can_be_private(slot)) {
> > + r = kvm_faultin_pfn_private(vcpu, fault);
> > + if (r != RET_PF_CONTINUE)
> > + return r == RET_PF_FIXED ? RET_PF_CONTINUE : r;
>
> I apologize if I've given you conflicting feedback in the past. Now that this
> returns RET_PF_* directly, I definitely think it makes sense to do:
>
> if (kvm_slot_can_be_private(slot) &&
> fault->is_private != kvm_mem_is_private(vcpu->kvm, fault->gfn)) {
> vcpu->run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT;
> if (fault->is_private)
> vcpu->run->memory.flags = KVM_MEMORY_EXIT_FLAG_PRIVATE;
> else
> vcpu->run->memory.flags = 0;
> vcpu->run->memory.padding = 0;
> vcpu->run->memory.gpa = fault->gfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
> vcpu->run->memory.size = PAGE_SIZE;
> return RET_PF_USER;
> }
>
> if (fault->is_private)
> return kvm_faultin_pfn_private(vcpu, fault);
>
> That way kvm_faultin_pfn_private() only handles private faults, and this doesn't
> need to play games with RET_PF_FIXED.

Agreed, this looks much simpler.

>
>
> > + }
> > +
> > async = false;
> > fault->pfn = __gfn_to_pfn_memslot(slot, fault->gfn, false, &async,
> > fault->write, &fault->map_writable,
> > @@ -4241,7 +4292,11 @@ static int direct_page_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault
> > read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> > else
> > write_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> > - kvm_release_pfn_clean(fault->pfn);
> > +
> > + if (fault->is_private)
> > + kvm_private_mem_put_pfn(fault->slot, fault->pfn);
> > + else
> > + kvm_release_pfn_clean(fault->pfn);
>
> AFAIK, we never bottomed out on whether or not this is needed[*]. Can you follow
> up with Kirill to get an answer before posting v8?

Sure.

Chao
>
> [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220620141647.GC2016793@chaop.bj.intel.com