From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751617Ab3KNFPk (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:15:40 -0500 Received: from e23smtp05.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.147]:55758 "EHLO e23smtp05.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751378Ab3KNFPf (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:15:35 -0500 Message-ID: <52845C6C.6060708@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:15:24 +0800 From: Xiao Guangrong User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcelo Tosatti CC: gleb@redhat.com, avi.kivity@gmail.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] KVM: MMU: flush tlb out of mmu lock when write-protect the sptes References: <1382534973-13197-1-git-send-email-xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1382534973-13197-5-git-send-email-xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131114003609.GA15692@amt.cnet> In-Reply-To: <20131114003609.GA15692@amt.cnet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13111405-1396-0000-0000-000003DF5001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Marcelo, On 11/14/2013 08:36 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > Any code location which reads the writable bit in the spte and assumes if its not > set, that the translation which the spte refers to is not cached in a > remote CPU's TLB can become buggy. (*) > > It might be the case that now its not an issue, but its so subtle that > it should be improved. > > Can you add a fat comment on top of is_writeable_bit describing this? > (and explain why is_writable_pte users do not make an assumption > about (*). > > "Writeable bit of locklessly modifiable sptes might be cleared > but TLBs not flushed: so whenever reading locklessly modifiable sptes > you cannot assume TLBs are flushed". > > For example this one is unclear: > > if (!can_unsync && is_writable_pte(*sptep)) > goto set_pte; > And: > > if (!is_writable_pte(spte) && > !(pt_protect && spte_is_locklessly_modifiable(spte))) > return false; > > This is safe because get_dirty_log/kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access are > serialized by a single mutex (if there were two mutexes, it would not be > safe). Can you add an assert to both > kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access/kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log > for (slots_lock) is locked, and explain? > > So just improve the comments please, thanks (no need to resend whole > series). Thank you very much for your time to review it and really appreciate for you detailed the issue so clearly to me. I will do it on the top of this patchset or after it is merged (if it's possiable).