public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] KVM: MMU: simplify mmu_set_spte
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:19:54 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50AC485A.7090507@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121120235147.GA12391@amt.cnet>

On 11/21/2012 07:51 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 07:23:26AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 11/21/2012 06:18 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>
>>>>>> -			child = page_header(pte & PT64_BASE_ADDR_MASK);
>>>>>> -			drop_parent_pte(child, sptep);
>>>>>> -			kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
>>>>>
>>>>> How come its safe to drop this case?
>>>>
>>>> We use "if (pfn != spte_to_pfn(*sptep))" to simplify the thing.
>>>> There are two cases:
>>>> 1) the sptep is not the last mapping.
>>>>    under this case, sptep must point to a shadow page table, that means
>>>>    spte_to_pfn(*sptep)) is used by KVM module, and 'pfn' is used by userspace.
>>>>    so, 'if' condition must be satisfied, the sptep will be dropped.
>>>>
>>>>    Actually, This is the origin case:
>>>>   | if (level > PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL &&
>>>>   |	    !is_large_pte(*sptep))"
>>>>
>>>> 2) the sptep is the last mapping.
>>>>    under this case, the level of spte (sp.level) must equal the 'level' which
>>>>    we pass to mmu_set_spte. If they point to the same pfn, it is 'remap', otherwise
>>>>    we drop it.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is safe. :)
>>>
>>> mmu_page_zap_pte takes care of it, OK.
>>>
>>> What if was_rmapped=true but gfn is different? Say if the spte comes
>>> from an unsync shadow page, the guest modifies that shadow page (but
>>> does not invalidate it with invlpg), then faults. gfn can still point
>>> to the same gfn (but in that case, with your patch,
>>> page_header_update_slot is not called.
>>
>> Marcelo,
>>
>> Page fault path and other sync/prefetch paths will reread guest page table,
>> then it get a different target pfn.
>>
>> The scenario is like this:
>>
>> gfn1 = pfn1, gfn2 = pfn2
>> gpte = pfn1, spte is shadowed by gpte and it is a unsync spte
>>
>> Guest                               Host
>>                                      spte = (gfn1, pfn1)
>>
>> modify gpte to let it point to gfn2
>>                                     spte = (gfn1, pfn1)
>> page-fault on gpte
>>                                     intercept the page-fault, then
>>                                     want to update spte to (gfn2, pfn2)
>>
>>                                     in mmu_set_spte, we can detect
>>                                     pfn2 != pfn1, then drop it.
>>
>> Hmm, the interesting thing is what if different gfns map to the same pfn.
>> For example, spte1 is shadowed by gfn1 and spte2 is shadowed by pfn2, both
>> gfn1 and gfn2 map to pfn, the code (including the current code) will set
>> spte1 to the gfn2's rmap and spte2 to the gfn1's rmap. But i think it is ok.
> 
> Current code updates gfn properly in set_spte by
> page_header_update_slot. 
> 
> Better keep state properly.

Okay, i will not change the position of page_header_update_slot in the
next version. Thank you, Marcelo!



  reply	other threads:[~2012-11-21  3:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-05 12:09 [PATCH 1/5] KVM: MMU: cleanup mapping-level Xiao Guangrong
2012-11-05 12:10 ` [PATCH 2/5] KVM: MMU: simplify mmu_set_spte Xiao Guangrong
2012-11-12 23:12   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-11-13  8:39     ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-11-20 22:18       ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-11-20 23:23         ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-11-20 23:51           ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-11-21  3:19             ` Xiao Guangrong [this message]
2012-11-05 12:11 ` [PATCH 3/5] KVM: MMU: simplify set_spte Xiao Guangrong
2012-11-20 22:24   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-11-20 23:26     ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-11-05 12:12 ` [PATCH 4/5] KVM: MMU: move adjusting softmmu pte access to FNAME(page_fault) Xiao Guangrong
2012-11-20 22:27   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-11-20 23:28     ` Xiao Guangrong
2012-11-05 12:12 ` [PATCH 5/5] KVM: MMU: remove pt_access in mmu_set_spte Xiao Guangrong

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=50AC485A.7090507@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.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