| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20121116035655.GA27414@amt.cnet>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:56:55 -0200
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: MMU: lazily drop large spte
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:39:12AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 11:02 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 07:17:15AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> On 11/14/2012 10:37 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 04:26:16PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >>>> Hi Marcelo,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/13/2012 07:10 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:59:26PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >>>>>> Do not drop large spte until it can be insteaded by small pages so that
> >>>>>> the guest can happliy read memory through it
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The idea is from Avi:
> >>>>>> | As I mentioned before, write-protecting a large spte is a good idea,
> >>>>>> | since it moves some work from protect-time to fault-time, so it reduces
> >>>>>> | jitter. This removes the need for the return value.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 34 +++++++++-------------------------
> >>>>>> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Its likely that other 4k pages are mapped read-write in the 2mb range
> >>>>> covered by a read-only 2mb map. Therefore its not entirely useful to
> >>>>> map read-only.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It needs a page fault to install a pte even if it is the read access.
> >>>> After the change, the page fault can be avoided.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Can you measure an improvement with this change?
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a test case to measure the read time which has been attached.
> >>>> It maps 4k pages at first (dirt-loggged), then switch to large sptes
> >>>> (stop dirt-logging), at the last, measure the read access time after write
> >>>> protect sptes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Before: 23314111 ns After: 11404197 ns
> >>>
> >>> Ok, i'm concerned about cases similar to e49146dce8c3dc6f44 (with shadow),
> >>> that is:
> >>>
> >>> - large page must be destroyed when write protecting due to
> >>> shadowed page.
> >>> - with shadow, it does not make sense to write protect
> >>> large sptes as mentioned earlier.
> >>>
> >>
> >> This case is removed now, the code when e49146dce8c3dc6f44 was applied is:
> >> |
> >> | pt = sp->spt;
> >> | for (i = 0; i < PT64_ENT_PER_PAGE; ++i)
> >> | /* avoid RMW */
> >> | if (is_writable_pte(pt[i]))
> >> | update_spte(&pt[i], pt[i] & ~PT_WRITABLE_MASK);
> >> | }
> >>
> >> The real problem in this code is it would write-protect the spte even if
> >> it is not a last spte that caused the middle-level shadow page table was
> >> write-protected. So e49146dce8c3dc6f44 added this code:
> >> | if (sp->role.level != PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL)
> >> | continue;
> >> |
> >> was good to fix this problem.
> >>
> >> Now, the current code is:
> >> | for (i = 0; i < PT64_ENT_PER_PAGE; ++i) {
> >> | if (!is_shadow_present_pte(pt[i]) ||
> >> | !is_last_spte(pt[i], sp->role.level))
> >> | continue;
> >> |
> >> | spte_write_protect(kvm, &pt[i], &flush, false);
> >> | }
> >> It only write-protect the last spte. So, it allows large spte existent.
> >> (the large spte can be broken by drop_large_spte() on the page-fault path.)
> >>
> >>> So i wonder why is this part from your patch
> >>>
> >>> - if (level > PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL &&
> >>> - has_wrprotected_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn, level)) {
> >>> - ret = 1;
> >>> - drop_spte(vcpu->kvm, sptep);
> >>> - goto done;
> >>> - }
> >>>
> >>> necessary (assuming EPT is in use).
> >>
> >> This is safe, we change these code to:
> >>
> >> - if (mmu_need_write_protect(vcpu, gfn, can_unsync)) {
> >> + if ((level > PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL &&
> >> + has_wrprotected_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn, level)) ||
> >> + mmu_need_write_protect(vcpu, gfn, can_unsync)) {
> >> pgprintk("%s: found shadow page for %llx, marking ro\n",
> >> __func__, gfn);
> >> ret = 1;
> >>
> >> The spte become read-only which can ensure the shadow gfn can not be changed.
> >>
> >> Btw, the origin code allows to create readonly spte under this case if !(pte_access & WRITEABBLE)
> >
> > Regarding shadow: it should be fine as long as fault path always deletes
> > large mappings, when shadowed pages are present in the region.
>
> For hard mmu is also safe, in this patch i added these code:
>
> @@ -2635,6 +2617,8 @@ static int __direct_map(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t v, int write,
> break;
> }
>
> + drop_large_spte(vcpu, iterator.sptep);
> +
>
> It can delete large mappings like soft mmu does.
>
> Anything i missed?
>
> >
> > Ah, unshadowing from reexecute_instruction does not handle
> > large pages. I suppose that is what "simplification" refers
> > to.
>
> reexecute_instruction did not directly handle last spte, it just
> removes all shadow pages, then let cpu retry the instruction, the
> page can become writable when encounter #PF again, large spte is fine
> under this case.
While searching for a given "gpa", you don't find large gfn which is
mapping it, right? (that is, searching for gfn 4 fails to find large
read-only "gfn 0"). Unshadowing gfn 4 will keep large read-only mapping
present.
1. large read-write spte to gfn 0
2. shadow gfn 4
3. write-protect large spte pointing to gfn 0
4. write to gfn 4
5. instruction emulation fails
5. unshadow gfn 4
6. refault, do not drop large spte because no pages shadowed
7. goto 4
> (Out of this thread: I notice reexecute_instruction allows to retry
> instruct only if tdp_enabled == 0, but on nested npt, it also has
> page write-protected by shadow pages. Maybe we need to improve this
> restriction.
> )
--
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