linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmu_notifier, kvm: Introduce dirty bit tracking in spte and mmu notifier to help KSM dirty bit tracking

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]

Message-Id: <201106221438.55516.nai.xia@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:38:55 +0800
From:	Nai Xia <nai.xia@...il.com>
To:	Izik Eidus <izik.eidus@...ellosystems.com>
Cc:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	"linux-mm" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, mtosatti@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmu_notifier, kvm: Introduce dirty bit tracking in spte and mmu notifier to help KSM dirty bit tracking

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 14:15:51 Izik Eidus wrote:
> On 6/22/2011 3:21 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Nai Xia (nai.xia@...il.com) wrote:
> >> Introduced kvm_mmu_notifier_test_and_clear_dirty(), kvm_mmu_notifier_dirty_update()
> >> and their mmu_notifier interfaces to support KSM dirty bit tracking, which brings
> >> significant performance gain in volatile pages scanning in KSM.
> >> Currently, kvm_mmu_notifier_dirty_update() returns 0 if and only if intel EPT is
> >> enabled to indicate that the dirty bits of underlying sptes are not updated by
> >> hardware.
> > Did you test with each of EPT, NPT and shadow?
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Nai Xia<nai.xia@...il.com>
> >> Acked-by: Izik Eidus<izik.eidus@...ellosystems.com>
> >> ---
> >>   arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |    1 +
> >>   arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c              |   36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   arch/x86/kvm/mmu.h              |    3 +-
> >>   arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c              |    1 +
> >>   include/linux/kvm_host.h        |    2 +-
> >>   include/linux/mmu_notifier.h    |   48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   mm/mmu_notifier.c               |   33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   virt/kvm/kvm_main.c             |   27 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   8 files changed, 149 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> index d2ac8e2..f0d7aa0 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> @@ -848,6 +848,7 @@ extern bool kvm_rebooting;
> >>   int kvm_unmap_hva(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long hva);
> >>   int kvm_age_hva(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long hva);
> >>   int kvm_test_age_hva(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long hva);
> >> +int kvm_test_and_clear_dirty_hva(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long hva);
> >>   void kvm_set_spte_hva(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long hva, pte_t pte);
> >>   int cpuid_maxphyaddr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >>   int kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> index aee3862..a5a0c51 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> @@ -979,6 +979,37 @@ out:
> >>   	return young;
> >>   }
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * Caller is supposed to SetPageDirty(), it's not done inside this.
> >> + */
> >> +static
> >> +int kvm_test_and_clear_dirty_rmapp(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long *rmapp,
> >> +				   unsigned long data)
> >> +{
> >> +	u64 *spte;
> >> +	int dirty = 0;
> >> +
> >> +	if (!shadow_dirty_mask) {
> >> +		WARN(1, "KVM: do NOT try to test dirty bit in EPT\n");
> >> +		goto out;
> >> +	}
> > This should never fire with the dirty_update() notifier test, right?
> > And that means that this whole optimization is for the shadow mmu case,
> > arguably the legacy case.
> >
> 
> Hi Chris,
> AMD npt does track the dirty bit in the nested page tables,
> so the shadow_dirty_mask should not be 0 in that case...
> 
Hi Izik, 
I think he meant that if the caller is doing right && (!shadow_dirty_mask), 
the kvm_test_and_clear_dirty_rmapp() will never be called at all. So 
this test inside kvm_test_and_clear_dirty_rmapp() is useless...as I said
I added this test in any case of this interface abused by others, just like
a softer BUG_ON() --- dirty bit is not that critical to bump into BUG().



--
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/