Message-ID: <502C89D7.6040906@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:49:11 +0800
From:	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/12] KVM: introduce readonly memslot

On 08/14/2012 11:25 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:58:07AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 08/14/2012 01:39 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:36:20AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>> On 08/11/2012 02:14 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 05:47:15PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>>>> Changelog:
>>>>>> - introduce KVM_PFN_ERR_RO_FAULT instead of dummy page
>>>>>> - introduce KVM_HVA_ERR_BAD and optimize error hva indicators
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The test case can be found at:
>>>>>> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1207.2/00819/migrate-perf.tar.bz2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In current code, if we map a readonly memory space from host to guest
>>>>>> and the page is not currently mapped in the host, we will get a fault-pfn
>>>>>> and async is not allowed, then the vm will crash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Avi's suggestion, We introduce readonly memory region to map ROM/ROMD
>>>>>> to the guest, read access is happy for readonly memslot, write access on
>>>>>> readonly memslot will cause KVM_EXIT_MMIO exit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Memory slots whose QEMU mapping is write protected is supported
>>>>> today, as long as there are no write faults.
>>>>>
>>>>> What prevents the use of mmap(!MAP_WRITE) to handle read-only memslots
>>>>> again?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is happy to map !write host memory space to the readonly memslot,
>>>> and they can coexist as well.
>>>>
>>>> readonly memslot checks the write-permission by seeing slot->flags and
>>>> !write memory checks the write-permission in hva_to_pfn() function
>>>> which checks vma->flags. It is no conflict.
>>>
>>> Yes, there is no conflict. The point is, if you can use the
>>> mmap(PROT_READ) interface (supporting read faults on read-only slots)
>>> for this behavior, what is the advantage of a new memslot flag?
>>>
>>
>> You can get the discussion at:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/22/228
>>
>>> I'm not saying mmap(PROT_READ) is the best interface, i am just asking
>>> why it is not.
>>
>> My fault. :(
>>
>>>
>>>>> The initial objective was to fix a vm crash, can you explain that
>>>>> initial problem?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The issue was trigged by this code:
>>>>
>>>>                 } else {
>>>>                         if (async && (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))
>>>>                                 *async = true;
>>>>                         pfn = KVM_PFN_ERR_FAULT;
>>>>                 }
>>>>
>>>> If the host memory region is readonly (!vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) and
>>>> its physical page is swapped out (or the file data does not be read in),
>>>> get_user_page_nowait will fail, above code reject to set async,
>>>> then we will get a fault pfn and async=false.
>>>>
>>>> I guess this issue also exists in "QEMU write protected mapping" as
>>>> you mentioned above.
>>>
>>> Yes, it does. As far as i understand, what that check does from a high
>>> level pov is:
>>>
>>> - Did get_user_pages_nowait() fail due to a swapped out page (in which 
>>> case we should try to swappin the page asynchronously), or due to 
>>> another reason (for which case an error should be returned).
>>>
>>> Using vma->vm_flags VM_WRITE for that is trying to guess why
>>> get_user_pages_nowait() failed, because it (gup_nowait return values) 
>>> does not provide sufficient information by itself.
>>>
>>
>> That is exactly what i did in the first version. :)
>>
>> You can see it and the reason why it switched to the new way (readonly memslot)
>> in the above website (the first message in thread).
> 
> Userspace can create multiple mappings for the same memory region, for
> example via shared memory (shm_open), and have different protections for
> the two (or more) regions. I had old patch doing this, its attached.
> 

In this way, if guest try to write a readonly gfn, the vm will be crashed since
it will return FAULT_PFN on the page-fault path. VMM can not detect this kind
of fault, we have these problems:
- even if guest try to write ROM on a PCI device, the guest will die, but
  we'd ignore this write, it looks more like the real machine.

- can not implement ROMD beacuse write to a ROMD is MMIO access

Yes, we can rework get_user_page_nowait and get_user_pages_fast, let them
tell us the fault reason, but it is more complex i think.

>>> Can't that be fixed separately? 
>>>
>>> Another issue which is also present with the mmap(PROT_READ) scheme is
>>> interaction with reexecute_instruction. That is, unless i am mistaken,
>>> reexecute_instruction can succeed (return true) on a region that is
>>> write protected. This breaks the "write faults on read-only slots exit
>>> to userspace via EXIT_MMIO" behaviour.
>>
>> Sorry, Why? After re-entry to the guest, it can not generate a correct MMIO?
> 
> reexecute_instruction validates presence of GPA by looking at registered
> memslots. But if the access is a write, and userspace memory map is
> read-only, reexecute_instruction should exit via MMIO.
> 
> That is, reexecute_instruction must validate GPA using registered
> memslots AND additionaly userspace map permission, not only registered
> memslot.
> 

What will happen if we always retry a unhandleable instruction which try to write
readonly memory? It will goto a endless loop (write-fault -> emulation fail ->
write-fault...)? Right?

I do not think exit via MMIO is a good idea because the instructions can not be
emulated, after the userspace finished the MMIO, the emulation will fail again.

I think we can simply exit via KVM_EXIT_INTERNAL_ERROR for all the access on
readonly memory because:
- it is fine for the read access since the read fault is always fixed on page-fault path,
  it does not go to x86_emulate_instruction()

- for the write access, we can not emulate it. It is not bad since it only happen on
  the instructions kvm unsupported.

Your idea?

--
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