Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v1 2/5] kvm/x86: add kvm_arch_test_clear_young()

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 11:24 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:09 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > I'll take a look at that series. clear_bit() probably won't cause any
> > > > > practical damage but is technically wrong because, for example, it can
> > > > > end up clearing the A-bit in a non-leaf PMD. (cmpxchg will just fail
> > > > > in this case, obviously.)
> > > >
> > > > Eh, not really.  By that argument, clearing an A-bit in a huge PTE is also technically
> > > > wrong because the target gfn may or may not have been accessed.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't understand. You mean clear_bit() on a huge PTE is
> > > technically wrong? Yes, that's what I mean. (cmpxchg() on a huge PTE
> > > is not.)
> > >
> > > > The only way for
> > > > KVM to clear a A-bit in a non-leaf entry is if the entry _was_ a huge PTE, but was
> > > > replaced between the "is leaf" and the clear_bit().
> > >
> > > I think there is a misunderstanding here. Let me be more specific:
> > > 1. Clearing the A-bit in a non-leaf entry is technically wrong because
> > > that's not our intention.
> > > 2. When we try to clear_bit() on a leaf PMD, it can at the same time
> > > become a non-leaf PMD, which causes 1) above, and therefore is
> > > technically wrong.
> > > 3. I don't think 2) could do any real harm, so no practically no problem.
> > > 4. cmpxchg() can avoid 2).
> > >
> > > Does this make sense?
> >
> > I understand what you're saying, but clearing an A-bit on a non-leaf PMD that
> > _just_ got converted from a leaf PMD is "wrong" if and only if the intented
> > behavior is nonsensical.
> 
> Sorry, let me rephrase:
> 1. Clearing the A-bit in a non-leaf entry is technically wrong because
> we didn't make sure there is the A-bit there --  the bit we are
> clearing can be something else. (Yes, we know it's not, but we didn't
> define this behavior, e.g., a macro to designate that bit for non-leaf
> entries.

Heh, by that definition, anything and everything is "technically wrong".  An Intel
CPU might support SVM, even though we know no such CPUs exist, so requiring AMD or
Hygon to enable SVM is technically wrong.

> Also I didn't check the spec -- does EPT actually support the
> A-bit in non-leaf entries? My guess is that NPT does.)

If A/D bits are enabled, both EPT and 64-bit NPT support the Accessed bit at all
levels irrespective of whether or not the entry maps a huge page.

PAE NPT is a different story, but the TDP MMU is limited to 64-bit kernels, i.e.
requires 64-bit NPT.