Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] KVM: MMU: introduce SPTE_ALLOW_WRITE bit

[Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>]

On 04/21/2012 12:22 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:30:55AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 04/21/2012 05:39 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> @@ -1177,9 +1178,8 @@ static int kvm_set_pte_rmapp(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long *rmapp,
>>>>  			new_spte = *sptep & ~PT64_BASE_ADDR_MASK;
>>>>  			new_spte |= (u64)new_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>
>>>> -			new_spte &= ~PT_WRITABLE_MASK;
>>>> -			new_spte &= ~SPTE_HOST_WRITEABLE;
>>>> -			new_spte &= ~shadow_accessed_mask;
>>>> +			new_spte &= ~(PT_WRITABLE_MASK | SPTE_HOST_WRITEABLE |
>>>> +				      shadow_accessed_mask | SPTE_ALLOW_WRITE);
>>>
>>> Each bit should have a distinct meaning. Here the host pte is being
>>> write-protected, which means only the SPTE_HOST_WRITEABLE bit
>>> should be cleared.
>>
>>
>> Hmm, it is no problem if SPTE_ALLOW_WRITE is not cleared.
>>
>> But the meaning of SPTE_ALLOW_WRITE will become strange: we will see a
>> spte with spte.SPTE_ALLOW_WRITE = 1 (means the spte is writable on host
>> and guest) and spte.SPTE_HOST_WRITEABLE = 0 (means the spte is read-only
>> on host).
>  
> You are combining gpte writable bit, and host pte writable bit (which
> are separate and independent of each other) into one bit. 
> 
> SPTE_HOST_WRITEABLE already indicates whether the host pte is writable 
> or not.


Okay, i will split the meaning in next version! Thank you, Marcelo!