From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: seanjc@google.com, pbonzini@redhat.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Don't treat fully writable SPTEs as volatile" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 10:40:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <16520856071304@kroah.com> (raw)
The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 706c9c55e5a32800605eb6a864ef6e1ca0c6c179 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 03:47:41 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Don't treat fully writable SPTEs as volatile
(modulo A/D)
Don't treat SPTEs that are truly writable, i.e. writable in hardware, as
being volatile (unless they're volatile for other reasons, e.g. A/D bits).
KVM _sets_ the WRITABLE bit out of mmu_lock, but never _clears_ the bit
out of mmu_lock, so if the WRITABLE bit is set, it cannot magically get
cleared just because the SPTE is MMU-writable.
Rename the wrapper of MMU-writable to be more literal, the previous name
of spte_can_locklessly_be_made_writable() is wrong and misleading.
Fixes: c7ba5b48cc8d ("KVM: MMU: fast path of handling guest page fault")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Message-Id: <20220423034752.1161007-2-seanjc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
index 64a2a7e2be90..48dcb6a782f4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -484,13 +484,15 @@ static bool spte_has_volatile_bits(u64 spte)
* also, it can help us to get a stable is_writable_pte()
* to ensure tlb flush is not missed.
*/
- if (spte_can_locklessly_be_made_writable(spte) ||
- is_access_track_spte(spte))
+ if (!is_writable_pte(spte) && is_mmu_writable_spte(spte))
+ return true;
+
+ if (is_access_track_spte(spte))
return true;
if (spte_ad_enabled(spte)) {
- if ((spte & shadow_accessed_mask) == 0 ||
- (is_writable_pte(spte) && (spte & shadow_dirty_mask) == 0))
+ if (!(spte & shadow_accessed_mask) ||
+ (is_writable_pte(spte) && !(spte & shadow_dirty_mask)))
return true;
}
@@ -557,7 +559,7 @@ static bool mmu_spte_update(u64 *sptep, u64 new_spte)
* we always atomically update it, see the comments in
* spte_has_volatile_bits().
*/
- if (spte_can_locklessly_be_made_writable(old_spte) &&
+ if (is_mmu_writable_spte(old_spte) &&
!is_writable_pte(new_spte))
flush = true;
@@ -1187,7 +1189,7 @@ static bool spte_write_protect(u64 *sptep, bool pt_protect)
u64 spte = *sptep;
if (!is_writable_pte(spte) &&
- !(pt_protect && spte_can_locklessly_be_made_writable(spte)))
+ !(pt_protect && is_mmu_writable_spte(spte)))
return false;
rmap_printk("spte %p %llx\n", sptep, *sptep);
@@ -3196,8 +3198,7 @@ static int fast_page_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
* be removed in the fast path only if the SPTE was
* write-protected for dirty-logging or access tracking.
*/
- if (fault->write &&
- spte_can_locklessly_be_made_writable(spte)) {
+ if (fault->write && is_mmu_writable_spte(spte)) {
new_spte |= PT_WRITABLE_MASK;
/*
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
index e4abeb5df1b1..c571784cb567 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
@@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ static inline void check_spte_writable_invariants(u64 spte)
"kvm: Writable SPTE is not MMU-writable: %llx", spte);
}
-static inline bool spte_can_locklessly_be_made_writable(u64 spte)
+static inline bool is_mmu_writable_spte(u64 spte)
{
return spte & shadow_mmu_writable_mask;
}
reply other threads:[~2022-05-09 8:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=16520856071304@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).