Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] KVM: MMU: adjust page size early if gfn used aspage table

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 03:23:26AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 08:57 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 05:13:03PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> We have two issues in current code:
> >> - if target gfn is used as its page table, guest will refault then kvm will use
> >>   small page size to map it. We need two #PF to fix its shadow page table
> >>
> >> - sometimes, say a exception is triggered during vm-exit caused by #PF
> >>   (see handle_exception() in vmx.c), we remove all the shadow pages shadowed
> >>   by the target gfn before go into page fault path, it will cause infinite
> >>   loop:
> >>   delete shadow pages shadowed by the gfn -> try to use large page size to map
> >>   the gfn -> retry the access ->...
> >>
> >> To fix these, We can adjust page size early if the target gfn is used as page
> >> table
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c         |   13 ++++---------
> >>  arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h |   33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>  2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> index 2a3c890..54fc61e 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> @@ -2380,15 +2380,10 @@ static int set_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *sptep,
> >>  	if (pte_access & ACC_WRITE_MASK) {
> >>
> >>  		/*
> >> -		 * There are two cases:
> >> -		 * - the one is other vcpu creates new sp in the window
> >> -		 *   between mapping_level() and acquiring mmu-lock.
> >> -		 * - the another case is the new sp is created by itself
> >> -		 *   (page-fault path) when guest uses the target gfn as
> >> -		 *   its page table.
> >> -		 * Both of these cases can be fixed by allowing guest to
> >> -		 * retry the access, it will refault, then we can establish
> >> -		 * the mapping by using small page.
> >> +		 * Other vcpu creates new sp in the window between
> >> +		 * mapping_level() and acquiring mmu-lock. We can
> >> +		 * allow guest to retry the access, the mapping can
> >> +		 * be fixed if guest refault.
> >>  		 */
> >>  		if (level > PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL &&
> >>  		    has_wrprotected_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn, level))
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> >> index ec481e9..32d77ff 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> >> @@ -491,6 +491,36 @@ out_gpte_changed:
> >>  	return 0;
> >>  }
> >>
> >> + /*
> >> + * To see whether the mapped gfn can write its page table in the current
> >> + * mapping.
> >> + *
> >> + * It is the helper function of FNAME(page_fault). When guest uses large page
> >> + * size to map the writable gfn which is used as current page table, we should
> >> + * force kvm to use small page size to map it because new shadow page will be
> >> + * created when kvm establishes shadow page table that stop kvm using large
> >> + * page size. Do it early can avoid unnecessary #PF and emulation.
> >> + *
> >> + * Note: the PDPT page table is not checked for PAE-32 bit guest. It is ok
> >> + * since the PDPT is always shadowed, that means, we can not use large page
> >> + * size to map the gfn which is used as PDPT.
> >> + */
> >> +static bool
> >> +FNAME(mapped_gfn_can_write_current_pagetable)(struct guest_walker *walker)
> >> +{
> >> +	int level;
> >> +	gfn_t mask = ~(KVM_PAGES_PER_HPAGE(walker->level) - 1);
> >> +
> >> +	if (!(walker->pte_access & ACC_WRITE_MASK))
> >> +		return false;
> >> +
> >> +	for (level = walker->level; level <= walker->max_level; level++)
> >> +		if (!((walker->gfn ^ walker->table_gfn[level - 1]) & mask))
> >> +			return true;
> > 
> > XOR won't work. Just check with sums and integer comparison, ie.
> > walker->gfn + KVM_PAGES_PER_HPAGE(walker->level).
> 
> It can not work since walker->gfn is not large-page-size aligned. For example,
> guest uses large page size to map 0x123000000 to physical address 0-2M, if
> guest faults on 0x123001000, walker->gfn = 0x1000.
> 
> The code "if (!((walker->gfn ^ walker->table_gfn[level - 1]) & mask))" is the
> same as "if (walker->gfn & mask == walker->table_gfn[level - 1] & mask)" - if
> any page in the large page area used as page table, we should use 4K page size
> to fix it.
> 
> In above example, if table_gfn is in the area [0, 2M), kvm is forced to use
> 4k page size.

Right, i misread it. 

> > Moreover, its confusing to have it checked at this level. What about
> > doing at reexecute_instruction?
> 
> Hmm, this patch is trying to fix a bug described in the changelog:
> 
> ======
>  - sometimes, say a exception is triggered during vm-exit caused by #PF
>    (see handle_exception() in vmx.c), we remove all the shadow pages shadowed
>    by the target gfn before go into page fault path, it will cause infinite
>    loop:
>    delete shadow pages shadowed by the gfn -> try to use large page size to map
>    the gfn -> retry the access ->...
> ======
> 
> Which is caused by this code:
> 
> 	if (is_page_fault(intr_info)) {
> 		/* EPT won't cause page fault directly */
> 		BUG_ON(enable_ept);
> 		cr2 = vmcs_readl(EXIT_QUALIFICATION);
> 		trace_kvm_page_fault(cr2, error_code);
> 
> 		if (kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu))
> 			kvm_mmu_unprotect_page_virt(vcpu, cr2);
> 		return kvm_mmu_page_fault(vcpu, cr2, error_code, NULL, 0);
> 	}
> 
> This bug is introduced in commit c219346325.
> 
> Another way to fix it is doing this change:
> @@ -2395,7 +2395,7 @@ static int set_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *sptep,
>                  */
>                 if (level > PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL &&
>                     has_wrprotected_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn, level))
> -                       goto done;
> +                       return 1;
> 
> The disadvantage of this way is, it causes unnecessary emulation. For example,
> if 0-2M is mapped in guest and only page 0 used as page table, any write to
> [4K, 2M) will need be emulated.
> 
> Your idea?

OK, i understand now.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/