[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210813031629.78670-1-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 11:16:29 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH V2] KVM: X86: Move PTE present check from loop body to __shadow_walk_next()
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
So far, the loop bodies already ensure the PTE is present before calling
__shadow_walk_next(): Some loop bodies simply exit with a !PRESENT
directly and some other loop bodies, i.e. FNAME(fetch) and __direct_map()
do not currently terminate their walks with a !PRESENT, but they get away
with it because they install present non-leaf SPTEs in the loop itself.
But checking pte present in __shadow_walk_next() is a more prudent way of
programing and loop bodies will not need to always check it. It allows us
removing unneded is_shadow_present_pte() in the loop bodies.
Terminating on !is_shadow_present_pte() is 100% the correct behavior, as
walking past a !PRESENT SPTE would lead to attempting to read a the next
level SPTE from a garbage iter->shadow_addr. Even some paths that do _not_
currently have a !is_shadow_present_pte() in the loop body is Ok since
they will install present non-leaf SPTEs and the additinal present check
is just an NOP.
The checking result in __shadow_walk_next() will be propagated to
shadow_walk_okay() for being used in any for(;;) loop.
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
---
Changed from V1:
Merge the two patches
Update changelog
Remove !is_shadow_present_pte() in FNAME(invlpg)
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 13 ++-----------
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
index a272ccbddfa1..42eebba6782e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -2231,7 +2231,7 @@ static bool shadow_walk_okay(struct kvm_shadow_walk_iterator *iterator)
static void __shadow_walk_next(struct kvm_shadow_walk_iterator *iterator,
u64 spte)
{
- if (is_last_spte(spte, iterator->level)) {
+ if (!is_shadow_present_pte(spte) || is_last_spte(spte, iterator->level)) {
iterator->level = 0;
return;
}
@@ -3152,9 +3152,6 @@ static u64 *fast_pf_get_last_sptep(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t gpa, u64 *spte)
for_each_shadow_entry_lockless(vcpu, gpa, iterator, old_spte) {
sptep = iterator.sptep;
*spte = old_spte;
-
- if (!is_shadow_present_pte(old_spte))
- break;
}
return sptep;
@@ -3694,9 +3691,6 @@ static int get_walk(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 addr, u64 *sptes, int *root_level
spte = mmu_spte_get_lockless(iterator.sptep);
sptes[leaf] = spte;
-
- if (!is_shadow_present_pte(spte))
- break;
}
return leaf;
@@ -3811,11 +3805,8 @@ static void shadow_page_table_clear_flood(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t addr)
u64 spte;
walk_shadow_page_lockless_begin(vcpu);
- for_each_shadow_entry_lockless(vcpu, addr, iterator, spte) {
+ for_each_shadow_entry_lockless(vcpu, addr, iterator, spte)
clear_sp_write_flooding_count(iterator.sptep);
- if (!is_shadow_present_pte(spte))
- break;
- }
walk_shadow_page_lockless_end(vcpu);
}
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
index f70afecbf3a2..13138b03cc69 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
@@ -977,7 +977,7 @@ static void FNAME(invlpg)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t gva, hpa_t root_hpa)
FNAME(update_pte)(vcpu, sp, sptep, &gpte);
}
- if (!is_shadow_present_pte(*sptep) || !sp->unsync_children)
+ if (!sp->unsync_children)
break;
}
write_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
--
2.19.1.6.gb485710b
Powered by blists - more mailing lists