Re: [PATCH 08/11] KVM: MMU: use page track for non-leaf shadow pages

[Kai Huang]

On 12/16/2015 04:39 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 03:51 PM, Kai Huang wrote:
> > On 12/15/2015 05:10 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > > On 12/15/2015 03:52 PM, Kai Huang wrote:
> > >
> > > > >   static bool __mmu_gfn_lpage_is_disallowed(gfn_t gfn, int level,
> > > > > @@ -2140,12 +2150,18 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page 
> > > > > *kvm_mmu_get_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > > >       hlist_add_head(&sp->hash_link,
> > > > > &vcpu->kvm->arch.mmu_page_hash[kvm_page_table_hashfn(gfn)]);
> > > > >       if (!direct) {
> > > > > -        if (rmap_write_protect(vcpu, gfn))
> > > > > +        /*
> > > > > +         * we should do write protection before syncing pages
> > > > > +         * otherwise the content of the synced shadow page may
> > > > > +         * be inconsistent with guest page table.
> > > > > +         */
> > > > > +        account_shadowed(vcpu->kvm, sp);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +        if (level == PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL &&
> > > > > +              rmap_write_protect(vcpu, gfn))
> > > > >               kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
> > > > I think your modification is good but I am little bit confused 
> > > > here. In account_shadowed, if
> > > > sp->role.level > PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL, the sp->gfn is write 
> > > > protected, and this is reasonable. So why
> > > > write protecting the gfn of PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL here?
> > >
> > > Because the shadow page will become 'sync' that means the shadow 
> > > page will be synced
> > > with the page table in guest. So the shadow page need to be 
> > > write-protected to avoid
> > > the guest page table is changed when we do the 'sync' thing.
> > >
> > > The shadow page need to be write-protected to avoid that guest page 
> > > table is changed
> > > when we are syncing the shadow page table. See kvm_sync_pages() 
> > > after doing
> > > rmap_write_protect().
> > I see. So why are you treat PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL gfn separately here? 
> > why this cannot be done in
> > account_shadowed, as you did for upper level sp?
>
> non-leaf shadow pages are keepking write-protected which page fault 
> handler can not fix write
> access on it. And leaf shadow pages are not.
My point is the original code didn't separate the two cases so I am not 
sure why you need to separate. Perhaps you want to make account_shadowed 
imply the non-leaf guest page table is write-protected while leaf page 
table is not.

Thanks,
-Kai
> > Actually I am thinking whether account_shadowed is
> > overdoing things. From it's name it should only *account* shadow sp, 
> > but now it also does write
> > protection and disable large page mapping.
>
> Hmm.. disable large page mapping is already in current code... i think 
> account_shadowed() can
> be understood as new page is taken into account, so protection things 
> are needed there.
>
> But I am not good at naming function and also my english is not good 
> enough, any other better name
> is welcome. ;)

--
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/