[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ef36db9d-bb9c-e042-2617-830cf44602de@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 13:51:34 +0800
From: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Anish Moorthy <amoorthy@...gle.com>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>,
Maciej Szmigiero <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
Liam Merwick <liam.merwick@...cle.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 18/33] KVM: x86/mmu: Handle page fault for private
memory
On 9/15/2023 10:26 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, Yan Zhao wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 06:55:16PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> ....
>>> +static void kvm_mmu_prepare_memory_fault_exit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>> + struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
>>> +{
>>> + kvm_prepare_memory_fault_exit(vcpu, fault->gfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
>>> + PAGE_SIZE, fault->write, fault->exec,
>>> + fault->is_private);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int kvm_faultin_pfn_private(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>> + struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
>>> +{
>>> + int max_order, r;
>>> +
>>> + if (!kvm_slot_can_be_private(fault->slot)) {
>>> + kvm_mmu_prepare_memory_fault_exit(vcpu, fault);
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + r = kvm_gmem_get_pfn(vcpu->kvm, fault->slot, fault->gfn, &fault->pfn,
>>> + &max_order);
>>> + if (r) {
>>> + kvm_mmu_prepare_memory_fault_exit(vcpu, fault);
>>> + return r;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + fault->max_level = min(kvm_max_level_for_order(max_order),
>>> + fault->max_level);
>>> + fault->map_writable = !(fault->slot->flags & KVM_MEM_READONLY);
>>> +
>>> + return RET_PF_CONTINUE;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int __kvm_faultin_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
>>> {
>>> struct kvm_memory_slot *slot = fault->slot;
>>> @@ -4293,6 +4356,14 @@ static int __kvm_faultin_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault
>>> return RET_PF_EMULATE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + if (fault->is_private != kvm_mem_is_private(vcpu->kvm, fault->gfn)) {
>> In patch 21,
>> fault->is_private is set as:
>> ".is_private = kvm_mem_is_private(vcpu->kvm, cr2_or_gpa >> PAGE_SHIFT)",
>> then, the inequality here means memory attribute has been updated after
>> last check.
>> So, why an exit to user space for converting is required instead of a mere retry?
>>
>> Or, is it because how .is_private is assigned in patch 21 is subjected to change
>> in future?
> This. Retrying on SNP or TDX would hang the guest. I suppose we could special
> case VMs where .is_private is derived from the memory attributes, but the
> SW_PROTECTED_VM type is primary a development vehicle at this point. I'd like to
> have it mimic SNP/TDX as much as possible; performance is a secondary concern.
So when .is_private is derived from the memory attributes, and if I
didn't miss
anything, there is no explicit conversion mechanism introduced yet so
far, does
it mean for pure sw-protected VM (withouth SNP/TDX), the page fault will be
handled according to the memory attributes setup by host/user vmm, no
implicit
conversion will be triggered, right?
>
> E.g. userspace needs to be prepared for "spurious" exits due to races on SNP and
> TDX, which this can theoretically exercise. Though the window is quite small so
> I doubt that'll actually happen in practice; which of course also makes it less
> important to retry instead of exiting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists