[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C2868C9.8040302@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:18:01 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/10] KVM: MMU: fix writable sync sp mapping
On 06/27/2010 10:59 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
> Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
>
>>
>> - /*
>> - * Optimization: for pte sync, if spte was writable the hash
>> - * lookup is unnecessary (and expensive). Write protection
>> - * is responsibility of mmu_get_page / kvm_sync_page.
>> - * Same reasoning can be applied to dirty page accounting.
>> - */
>> - if (!can_unsync&& is_writable_pte(*sptep))
>> - goto set_pte;
>> -
>>
> Sorry, this optimization not broken anything, just my mistake, please review
> this.
>
> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/10] KVM: MMU: fix writable sync sp mapping
>
> While we sync the unsync sp, we may mapping the spte writable, it's
> dangerous, if one unsync sp's mapping gfn is another unsync page's gfn.
>
> For example:
> have two unsync pages SP1, SP2 and:
>
> SP1.pte[0] = P
> SP2.gfn's pfn = P
> [SP1.pte[0] = SP2.gfn's pfn]
>
> First, we unsync SP2, it will write protect for SP2.gfn since
>
Do you mean we sync SP2 here?
> SP1.pte[0] is mapping to this page, it will mark read only.
>
> Then, we unsync SP1, SP1.pte[0] may mark to writable.
>
How can unsyncing SP1 change SP1.pte[0]?
When we unsync SP2 by a fault through SP1.pte[0], that can cause
SP1.pte[0] to become writable. But unsyncing SP1 shouldn't have an
effect on its sptes.
> Now, we will write SP2.gfn by SP1.pte[0] mapping
>
> This bug will corrupt guest's page table, fixed by mark read-only mapping
> if the mapped gfn has shadow page
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong<xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> index 045a0f9..24290f8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -1810,11 +1810,14 @@ static int mmu_need_write_protect(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn,
> bool need_unsync = false;
>
> for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(vcpu->kvm, s, gfn, node) {
> + if (!can_unsync)
> + return 1;
> +
>
What if the page is already unsync? We don't need write protection in
this case.
> if (s->role.level != PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL)
> return 1;
>
> if (!need_unsync&& !s->unsync) {
> - if (!can_unsync || !oos_shadow)
> + if (!oos_shadow)
> return 1;
> need_unsync = true;
> }
>
How can this change anything? On the first pass, need_unsync = false,
so we will check can_unsync and return.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists