From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] kvm, x86: use ro page and don't copy shared page
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:56:41 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100729055641.GK31711@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C50E43A.4020106@cn.fujitsu.com>
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:15:22AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 07/16/2010 03:19 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> >> +/* get a current mapped page fast, and test whether the page is writable. */
> >> +static struct page *get_user_page_and_protection(unsigned long addr,
> >> + int *writable)
> >> +{
> >> + struct page *page[1];
> >> +
> >> + if (__get_user_pages_fast(addr, 1, 1, page) == 1) {
> >> + *writable = 1;
> >> + return page[0];
> >> + }
> >> + if (__get_user_pages_fast(addr, 1, 0, page) == 1) {
> >> + *writable = 0;
> >> + return page[0];
> >> + }
> >> + return NULL;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static pfn_t kvm_get_pfn_for_page_fault(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn,
> >> + int write_fault, int *host_writable)
> >> +{
> >> + unsigned long addr;
> >> + struct page *page;
> >> +
> >> + if (!write_fault) {
> >> + addr = gfn_to_hva(kvm, gfn);
> >> + if (kvm_is_error_hva(addr)) {
> >> + get_page(bad_page);
> >> + return page_to_pfn(bad_page);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + page = get_user_page_and_protection(addr, host_writable);
> >> + if (page)
> >> + return page_to_pfn(page);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + *host_writable = 1;
> >> + return kvm_get_pfn_for_gfn(kvm, gfn);
> >> +}
> >> +
> > kvm_get_pfn_for_gfn() returns fault_page if page is mapped RO, so caller
> > of kvm_get_pfn_for_page_fault() and kvm_get_pfn_for_gfn() will get
> > different results when called on the same page. Not good.
> > kvm_get_pfn_for_page_fault() logic should be folded into
> > kvm_get_pfn_for_gfn().
> >
>
>
> The different results are the things we just need.
How so? Users of kvm_get_pfn_for_gfn() will think that page is invalid
and may report misconfiguration to userspace and users of
kvm_get_pfn_for_page_fault() will think that the access to page is OK.
There are no many users of kvm_get_pfn_for_gfn() and may be your patch
replace all of them with kvm_get_pfn_for_page_fault(), but this just
strengthen the point that they should be merged.
> We don't want to copy and write a page which is mapped RO when
> only read fault.
I don't see how returning inconsistent results helps us achieving that.
BTW since kvm_get_pfn_for_gfn() will never map RO page
get_user_page_and_protection() will never find any RO pages. Looks like
kvm_get_pfn_for_page_fault() is equivalent to kvm_get_pfn_for_gfn()
since !write_fault section will at best find mapped RW page.
--
Gleb.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-29 5:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-16 2:13 [PATCH 5/6] kvm, x86: use ro page and don't copy shared page Lai Jiangshan
2010-07-16 7:19 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-07-16 23:26 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2010-07-17 4:31 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-07-18 15:14 ` Avi Kivity
2010-07-18 15:23 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-07-18 15:31 ` Avi Kivity
2010-07-29 2:19 ` Lai Jiangshan
2010-07-29 2:15 ` Lai Jiangshan
2010-07-29 5:56 ` Gleb Natapov [this message]
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=20100729055641.GK31711@redhat.com \
--to=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
/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