[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ebd506ba-05cc-99d7-ece5-34bd67fc2430@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 19:27:31 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc: 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>,
David Stevens <stevensd@...omium.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] KVM: x86: Fix allocation sizeof argument
On 05/10/21 17:41, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> if (*gfn_track == NULL) {
>> mutex_unlock(&kvm->slots_arch_lock);
> Hrm, this fails to free the gfn_track allocations for previous memslots. The
> on-demand rmaps code has the exact same bug (it frees rmaps for previous lpages
> in the_current_ slot, but does not free previous slots).
That's not a huge deal because the syscall is failing. So as long as
it's not leaked forever, it's okay. The problem is the
WARN_ON(slot->arch.rmap[i]), or the missing check in
kvm_page_track_enable_mmu_write_tracking, but that's easily fixed. I'd
even remove the call to memslot_rmaps_free.
> And having two separate flows (and flags) for rmaps vs. gfn_track is pointless,
> and means we have to maintain two near-identical copies of non-obvious code.
I was thinking the separate flow (not so much the flag) is needed
because, if KVMGT is enabled, gfn_track is allocated unconditionally.
rmaps are added on top of that if shadow paging is enabled; but
kvm_page_track_create_memslot will have already created the counter,
including the one for KVM_PAGE_TRACK_WRITE.
But looking at the code again, I guess you could call
kvm_page_track_enable_mmu_write_tracking inside alloc_all_memslots_rmaps
(with a little bit of renaming), and with that the flag would go away.
I'll take a look tomorrow, but I'd rather avoid reverting the patch.
Thanks,
Paolo
> Paolo, is it too late to just drop the original deae4a10f166 ("KVM: x86: only
> allocate gfn_track when necessary")?
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists