lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:22:19 +0200 From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> To: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org Cc: 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>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 9/9] kvm_main.c: handle atomic memslot update On 27.09.22 10:35, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote: > > > Am 27/09/2022 um 09:46 schrieb David Hildenbrand: >> On 09.09.22 12:45, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote: >>> When kvm_vm_ioctl_set_memory_region_list() is invoked, we need >>> to make sure that all memslots are updated in the inactive list >>> and then swap (preferreably only once) the lists, so that all >>> changes are visible immediately. >>> >>> The only issue is that DELETE and MOVE need to perform 2 swaps: >>> firstly replace old memslot with invalid, and then remove invalid. >>> >> >> I'm curious, how would a resize (grow/shrink) or a split be handled? >> > > There are only 4 operations possible in KVM: KVM_MR_{DELETE, MOVE, > CREATE, FLAGS_ONLY}. > > A resize should be implemented in QEMU as DELETE+CREATE. > > Therefore a resize on memslot X will be implemented as: > First pass on the userspace operations: > invalidate memslot X; > swap_memslot_list(); // NOW it is visible to the guest > > What guest sees: memslot X is invalid, so MMU keeps retrying the page fault > > Second pass: > create new memslot X > delete old memslot X Thanks a lot for the very nice explanation! Does the invalidation already free up memslot metadata (especially the rmaps) or will we end up temporarily allocating twice the memslot metadata? -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists