[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <36634375-e7ee-e28e-20dd-9ab1ebdd8040@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 14:57:31 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] KVM: x86/mmu: explicitly check nx_hugepage in
disallowed_hugepage_adjust()
On 8/6/22 01:05, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> !is_large_pte(spte)) {
> + u64 page_mask;
> +
> + /*
> + * Ensure nx_huge_page_disallowed is read after checking for a
> + * present shadow page. A different vCPU may be concurrently
> + * installing the shadow page if mmu_lock is held for read.
> + * Pairs with the smp_wmb() in kvm_tdp_mmu_map().
> + */
> + smp_rmb();
> +
> + if (!spte_to_child_sp(spte)->nx_huge_page_disallowed)
> + return;
> +
I wonder if the barrier shouldn't be simply in to_shadow_page(), i.e.
always assume in the TDP MMU code that sp->xyz is read after the SPTE
that points to that struct kvm_mmu_page.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists