linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/12] KVM: MMU: redesign the algorithm of pte

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: <521DB6CC.4030107@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:37:32 +0800
From:	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
CC:	avi.kivity@...il.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] KVM: MMU: redesign the algorithm of pte_list

On 08/28/2013 04:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:

>> +
>> +	rmap_printk("pte_list_add: %p %llx many->many\n", spte, *spte);
>> +	desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(*pte_list & ~1ul);
>> +
>> +	/* No empty position in the desc. */
>> +	if (desc->sptes[PTE_LIST_EXT - 1]) {
>> +		struct pte_list_desc *new_desc;
>> +		new_desc = mmu_alloc_pte_list_desc(vcpu);
>> +		new_desc->more = desc;
>> +		desc = new_desc;
>> +		*pte_list = (unsigned long)desc | 1;
>>  	}
>> -	return count;
>> +
>> +	free_pos = find_first_free(desc);
>> +	desc->sptes[free_pos] = spte;
>> +	return count_spte_number(desc);
> Should it be count_spte_number(desc) - 1? The function should returns
> the number of pte entries before the spte was added.

Yes. We have handled it count_spte_number(), we count the number like this:

	return first_free + desc_num * PTE_LIST_EXT;

The first_free is indexed from 0.

Maybe it is clearer to let count_spte_number() return the real number.

> 
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void
>> -pte_list_desc_remove_entry(unsigned long *pte_list, struct pte_list_desc *desc,
>> -			   int i, struct pte_list_desc *prev_desc)
>> +pte_list_desc_remove_entry(unsigned long *pte_list,
>> +			   struct pte_list_desc *desc, int i)
>>  {
>> -	int j;
>> +	struct pte_list_desc *first_desc;
>> +	int last_used;
>> +
>> +	first_desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(*pte_list & ~1ul);
>> +	last_used = find_last_used(first_desc);
>>  
>> -	for (j = PTE_LIST_EXT - 1; !desc->sptes[j] && j > i; --j)
>> -		;
>> -	desc->sptes[i] = desc->sptes[j];
>> -	desc->sptes[j] = NULL;
>> -	if (j != 0)
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Move the entry from the first desc to this position we want
>> +	 * to remove.
>> +	 */
>> +	desc->sptes[i] = first_desc->sptes[last_used];
>> +	first_desc->sptes[last_used] = NULL;
>> +
> What if desc == first_desc and i < last_used. You still move spte
> backwards so lockless walk may have already examined entry at i and
> will miss spte that was moved there from last_used position, no?

Right. I noticed it too and fixed in the v2 which is being tested.
I fixed it by bottom-up walk desc, like this:

pte_list_walk_lockless():

	desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(pte_list_value & ~1ul);
	while (!desc_is_a_nulls(desc)) {
		/*
		 * We should do bottom-up walk since we always use the
		 * bottom entry to replace the deleted entry if only
		 * one desc is used in the rmap when a spte is removed.
		 * Otherwise the moved entry will be missed.
		 */
		for (i = PTE_LIST_EXT - 1; i >= 0; i--)
			fn(desc->sptes[i]);

		desc = ACCESS_ONCE(desc->more);

		/* It is being initialized. */
		if (unlikely(!desc))
			goto restart;
	}

How about this?

> 
>> +	/* No valid entry in this desc, we can free this desc now. */
>> +	if (!first_desc->sptes[0]) {
>> +		struct pte_list_desc *next_desc = first_desc->more;
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Only one entry existing but still use a desc to store it?
>> +		 */
>> +		WARN_ON(!next_desc);
>> +
>> +		mmu_free_pte_list_desc(first_desc);
>> +		first_desc = next_desc;
>> +		*pte_list = (unsigned long)first_desc | 1ul;
>>  		return;
>> -	if (!prev_desc && !desc->more)
>> -		*pte_list = (unsigned long)desc->sptes[0];
>> -	else
>> -		if (prev_desc)
>> -			prev_desc->more = desc->more;
>> -		else
>> -			*pte_list = (unsigned long)desc->more | 1;
>> -	mmu_free_pte_list_desc(desc);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	WARN_ON(!first_desc->sptes[0]);
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Only one entry in this desc, move the entry to the head
>> +	 * then the desc can be freed.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!first_desc->sptes[1] && !first_desc->more) {
>> +		*pte_list = (unsigned long)first_desc->sptes[0];
>> +		mmu_free_pte_list_desc(first_desc);
>> +	}
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void pte_list_remove(u64 *spte, unsigned long *pte_list)
>>  {
>>  	struct pte_list_desc *desc;
>> -	struct pte_list_desc *prev_desc;
>>  	int i;
>>  
>>  	if (!*pte_list) {
>> -		printk(KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove: %p 0->BUG\n", spte);
>> -		BUG();
>> -	} else if (!(*pte_list & 1)) {
>> +		WARN(1, KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove: %p 0->BUG\n", spte);
> Why change BUG() to WARN() here and below?

WARN(1, "xxx") can replace two lines in the origin code. And personally,
i prefer WARN() to BUG() since sometimes BUG() can stop my box and i need to
get the full log by using kdump.

If you object it, i will change it back in the next version. :)

> 
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (!(*pte_list & 1)) {
>>  		rmap_printk("pte_list_remove:  %p 1->0\n", spte);
>>  		if ((u64 *)*pte_list != spte) {
>> -			printk(KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove:  %p 1->BUG\n", spte);
>> -			BUG();
>> +			WARN(1, KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove:  %p 1->BUG\n", spte);
>>  		}
> Remove {} since only one statement left in the if(). Or better yet why
> not:
>   WARN ((u64 *)*pte_list != spte, ....)?

Yes, it is better.

> But again why not BUG()?

The explanation is above. :)


--
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/