[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6afdcd42-7abe-c814-1f67-407ff91a75d2@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:42:20 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, thomas lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
rkrcmar@...hat.com, joro@...tes.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] kvm: svm: Add support for additional SVM NPF error
codes
On 01/08/2017 15:36, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>>
>> The flow is:
>>
>> hardware walks page table; L2 page table points to read only memory
>> -> pf_interception (code =
>> -> kvm_handle_page_fault (need_unprotect = false)
>> -> kvm_mmu_page_fault
>> -> paging64_page_fault (for example)
>> -> try_async_pf
>> map_writable set to false
>> -> paging64_fetch(write_fault = true, map_writable = false,
>> prefault = false)
>> -> mmu_set_spte(speculative = false, host_writable = false,
>> write_fault = true)
>> -> set_spte
>> mmu_need_write_protect returns true
>> return true
>> write_fault == true -> set emulate = true
>> return true
>> return true
>> return true
>> emulate
>>
>> Without this patch, emulation would have called
>>
>> ..._gva_to_gpa_nested
>> -> translate_nested_gpa
>> -> paging64_gva_to_gpa
>> -> paging64_walk_addr
>> -> paging64_walk_addr_generic
>> set fault (nested_page_fault=true)
>>
>> and then:
>>
>> kvm_propagate_fault
>> -> nested_svm_inject_npf_exit
>>
>
> maybe then safer thing would be to qualify the new error_code check with
> !mmu_is_nested(vcpu) or something like that. So that way it would run on
> L1 guest, and not the L2 guest. I believe that would restrict it avoid
> hitting this case. Are you okay with this change ?
Or check "vcpu->arch.mmu.direct_map"? That would be true when not using
shadow pages.
> IIRC, the main place where this check was valuable was when L1 guest had
> a fault (when coming out of the L2 guest) and emulation was not needed.
How do I measure the effect? I tried counting the number of emulations,
and any difference from the patch was lost in noise.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists