linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] KVM: MMU: don't drop spte if overwrite it from W to RO

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:	Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:12:56 +0800
From:	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] KVM: MMU: don't drop spte if overwrite it from
 W to RO

On 11/17/2010 11:57 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:

>>>   set_pte:
>>>       update_spte(sptep, spte);
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * If we overwrite a writable spte with a read-only one we
>>> +     * should flush remote TLBs. Otherwise rmap_write_protect
>>> +     * will find a read-only spte, even though the writable spte
>>> +     * might be cached on a CPU's TLB.
>>> +     */
>>> +    if (is_writable_pte(entry)&&  !is_writable_pte(*sptep))
>>> +        kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
>> There is no need to flush on sync_page path since the guest is
>> responsible for it.
>>
> 
>  If we don't, the next rmap_write_protect() will incorrectly decide that
> there's no need to flush tlbs.
> 

Maybe it's not a problem if guest can flush all tlbs after overwrite it?
Marcelo, what's your comment about this?
--
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/