linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] kvm, mem-hotplug: Do not pin apic access page in memory.

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: <53C7D0DC.1020001@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:34:20 +0800
From:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...antech.com>
CC:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>, <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	<nadav.amit@...il.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<laijs@...fujitsu.com>, <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	<guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] kvm, mem-hotplug: Do not pin apic access page
 in memory.

Hi Gleb,

On 07/15/2014 08:40 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
......
>>
>> And yes, we have the problem you said here. We can migrate the page while L2
>> vm is running.
>> So I think we should enforce L2 vm to exit to L1. Right ?
>>
> We can request APIC_ACCESS_ADDR reload during L2->L1 vmexit emulation, so
> if APIC_ACCESS_ADDR changes while L2 is running it will be reloaded for L1 too.
>

Sorry, I think I don't quite understand the procedure you are talking 
about here.

Referring to the code, I think we have three machines: L0(host), L1 and L2.
And we have two types of vmexit: L2->L1 and L2->L0.  Right ?

We are now talking about this case: L2 and L1 shares the apic page.

Using patch 5/5, when apic page is migrated on L0, mmu_notifier will 
notify L1,
and update L1's VMCS. At this time, we are in L0, not L2. Why cannot we 
update
the L2's VMCS at the same time ?  Is it because we don't know how many 
L2 vms
there are in L1 ?

And, when will L2->L1 vmexit happen ?  When we enforce L1 to exit to L0 by
calling make_all_cpus_request(), is L2->L1 vmexit triggered automatically ?

Thanks.
--
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/