[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F9237B8.9090503@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:29:44 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
CC: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] KVM: MMU: introduce SPTE_WRITE_PROTECT bit
On 04/21/2012 08:55 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> So this is an example of implicit assumptions which break if you update
>> spte without mmu_lock. Certainly there are more cases. :(
>
> OK, i now see you mentioned a similar case in the document, for
> rmap_write_protect.
>
> More importantly than the particular flush TLB case, the point is
> every piece of code that reads and writes sptes must now be aware that
> mmu_lock alone does not guarantee stability. Everything must be audited.
>
Yes, that is true, but it is not hard to audit the code since we only
change the spte from read-only to writable, also all information that
fast page fault depends on is from spte.
--
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