linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: x86: improve reexecute

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20121203194704.GA590@amt.cnet>
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2012 17:47:04 -0200
From:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To:	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: x86: improve reexecute_instruction

On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 04:33:01PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
> 
> Thanks for your patience. I was reading your reply over and over again, i would
> like to argue it more :).
> Please see below.
> 
> On 11/29/2012 08:21 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/17/75
> > 
> > Does unshadowing work with large sptes at reexecute_instruction? That
> > is, do we nuke any large read-only sptes that might be causing a certain
> > gfn to be read-only?
> > 
> > That is, following the sequence there, is the large read-only spte
> > properly destroyed?
> 
> Actually, sptes can not prevent gfn becoming writable, that means the gfn
> can become writable *even if* it exists a spte which maps to the gfn.
> 
> The condition that can prevent gfn becoming writable is, the gfn has been
> shadowed, that means the gfn can not become writable if it exists a sp
> with sp.gfn = gfn.
> 
> Note, drop_spte does not remove any sp. So, either destroying spte or keeping
> spte doest not have any affect for gfn write-protection.
> 
> If luck enough, my point is right, the current code can do some optimizations
> as below:
> 
>                 if (level > PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL &&
> -                   has_wrprotected_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn, level)) {
> -                       ret = 1;
> -                       drop_spte(vcpu->kvm, sptep);
> -                       goto done;
> -               }
> +                   has_wrprotected_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn, level))
> +                       return 0;
> 
> 
> 1): we can return 0 instead of 1 to avoid unnecessary emulation. vcpu will refault
>     again then kvm will use small page.

So on refault the large spte is nuked. That works, yes.

> 2): need not do any change on the 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/