Message-ID: <20210603123759.ovlgws3ycnem4t3d@gator.home>
Date:   Thu, 3 Jun 2021 14:37:59 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To:     "Duan, Zhenzhong" <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
Cc:     "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <maciej.szmigiero@...cle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: kvm: fix overlapping addresses in
 memslot_perf_test

On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 05:26:33AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Maciej S. Szmigiero <maciej.szmigiero@...cle.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 7:07 AM
> > To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>; Duan, Zhenzhong
> > <zhenzhong.duan@...el.com>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; kvm@...r.kernel.org; Andrew Jones
> > <drjones@...hat.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: kvm: fix overlapping addresses in
> > memslot_perf_test
> > 
> > On 30.05.2021 01:13, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> > > On 29.05.2021 12:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >> On 28/05/21 21:51, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> > >>> On 28.05.2021 21:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >>>> The memory that is allocated in vm_create is already mapped close
> > >>>> to GPA 0, because test_execute passes the requested memory to
> > >>>> prepare_vm.  This causes overlapping memory regions and the test
> > >>>> crashes.  For simplicity just move MEM_GPA higher.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> I am not sure that I understand the issue correctly, is
> > >>> vm_create_default() already reserving low GPAs (around 0x10000000)
> > >>> on some arches or run environments?
> > >>
> > >> It maps the number of pages you pass in the second argument, see
> > >> vm_create.
> > >>
> > >>    if (phy_pages != 0)
> > >>      vm_userspace_mem_region_add(vm, VM_MEM_SRC_ANONYMOUS,
> > >>                                  0, 0, phy_pages, 0);
> > >>
> > >> In this case:
> > >>
> > >>    data->vm = vm_create_default(VCPU_ID, mempages, guest_code);
> > >>
> > >> called here:
> > >>
> > >>    if (!prepare_vm(data, nslots, maxslots, tdata->guest_code,
> > >>                    mem_size, slot_runtime)) {
> > >>
> > >> where mempages is mem_size, which is declared as:
> > >>
> > >>          uint64_t mem_size = tdata->mem_size ? : MEM_SIZE_PAGES;
> > >>
> > >> but actually a better fix is just to pass a small fixed value (e.g.
> > >> 1024) to vm_create_default, since all other regions are added by hand
> > >
> > > Yes, but the argument that is passed to vm_create_default() (mem_size
> > > in the case of the test) is not passed as phy_pages to vm_create().
> > > Rather, vm_create_with_vcpus() calculates some upper bound of extra
> > > memory that is needed to cover that much guest memory (including for
> > > its page tables).
> > >
> > > The biggest possible mem_size from memslot_perf_test is 512 MiB + 1
> > > page, according to my calculations this results in phy_pages of 1029
> > > (~4 MiB) in the x86-64 case and around 1540 (~6 MiB) in the s390x case
> > > (here I am not sure about the exact number, since s390x has some
> > > additional alignment requirements).
> > >
> > > Both values are well below 256 MiB (0x10000000UL), so I was wondering
> > > what kind of circumstances can make these allocations collide (maybe I
> > > am missing something in my analysis).
> > 
> > I see now that there has been a patch merged last week called
> > "selftests: kvm: make allocation of extra memory take effect" by Zhenzhong
> > that now allocates also the whole memory size passed to
> > vm_create_default() (instead of just page tables for that much memory).
> > 
> > The commit message of this patch says that "perf_test_util and
> > kvm_page_table_test use it to alloc extra memory currently", however both
> > kvm_page_table_test and lib/perf_test_util framework explicitly add the
> > required memory allocation by doing a vm_userspace_mem_region_add()
> > call for the same memory size that they pass to vm_create_default().
> > 
> > So now they allocate this memory twice.
> > 
> > @Zhenzhong: did you notice improper operation of either
> > kvm_page_table_test or perf_test_util-based tests (demand_paging_test,
> > dirty_log_perf_test,
> > memslot_modification_stress_test) before your patch?
> No
> 
> > 
> > They seem to work fine for me without the patch (and I guess other people
> > would have noticed earlier, too, if they were broken).
> > 
> > After this patch not only these tests allocate their memory twice but it is
> > harder to make vm_create_default() allocate the right amount of memory for
> > the page tables in cases where the test needs to explicitly use
> > vm_userspace_mem_region_add() for its allocations (because it wants the
> > allocation placed at a specific GPA or in a specific memslot).
> > 
> > One has to basically open-code the page table size calculations from
> > vm_create_with_vcpus() in the particular test then, taking also into account
> > that vm_create_with_vcpus() will not only allocate the passed memory size
> > (calculated page tables size) but also behave like it was allocating space for
> > page tables for these page tables (even though the passed memory size itself
> > is supposed to cover them).
> Looks we have different understanding to the parameter extra_mem_pages of vm_create_default().
> 
> In your usage, extra_mem_pages is only used for page table calculations, real extra memory allocation
> happens in the extra call of vm_userspace_mem_region_add().

Yes, this is the meaning that kvm selftests has always had for
extra_mem_pages of vm_create_default(). If we'd rather have a different
meaning, that's fine, but we need to change all the callers of the
function as well.

If we decide to leave vm_create_default() the way it was by reverting this
patch, then maybe we should consider renaming the parameter and/or
documenting the function.

Thanks,
drew

> 
> In my understanding, extra_mem_pages is used for a VM who wants a custom memory size in slot0, 
> rather than the default DEFAULT_GUEST_PHY_PAGES size.
> 
> I understood your comments and do agree that my patch bring some trouble to your code, sorry for that.
> I'm fine to revert that patch and I think it's better to let the maintainers to decide what extra_mem_pages
> Is used for.
> 
> Thanks
> Zhenzhong
> > 
> > Due to the above, I suspect the previous behavior was, in fact, correct.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Maciej

Powered by blists - more mailing lists