linux-kernel - RE: PowerPC page faults

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 May 2009 13:46:25 +0800
From:	"Liu Yu-B13201" <Yu.Liu@...escale.com>
To:	"Anthony Liguori" <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	"Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@...ibm.com>
Cc:	"Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	"Avi Kivity" <avi@...hat.com>,
	"Chris Wright" <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	"Gregory Haskins" <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: PowerPC page faults

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kvm-owner@...r.kernel.org 
> [mailto:kvm-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Liguori
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:18 AM
> To: Hollis Blanchard
> Cc: Gregory Haskins; Avi Kivity; Chris Wright; Gregory 
> Haskins; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; kvm@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: PowerPC page faults
> 
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 12:54 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >   
> >> For future ppcemb's, do you know if there is an equivalent 
> of a PF exit 
> >> type?  Does the hardware squirrel away the faulting 
> address somewhere 
> >> and set PC to the start of the instruction?  If so, no 
> guest memory load 
> >> should be required.
> >>     
> >
> > Ahhh... you're saying that the address itself (or offset 
> within a page)
> > is the hypercall token, totally separate from IO emulation, 
> and so we
> > could ignore the access size.
> 
> No, I'm not being nearly that clever.
> 
> I was suggesting that hardware virtualization support in future PPC 
> systems might contain a mechanism to intercept a guest-mode 
> TLB miss.  
> If it did, it would be useful if that guest-mode TLB miss "exit" 
> contained extra information somewhere that included the PC of the 
> faulting instruction, the address response for the fault, and enough 
> information to handle the fault without instruction decoding.

I don't think this can come true if it is software managed TLB.
For guest will never know the content of its TLB without the help of software.

> 
> I assume all MMIO comes from the same set of instructions in PPC?  
> Something like ld/st instructions?  Presumably all you need 
> to know from 
> instruction decoding is the destination register and whether it was a 
> read or write?

Yes, but more there is a search in guest TLB to see if it is a guest TLB miss currently.
A big overhead, especially for a large TLB without being organized by sth. like rbtree.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/