All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: james.morse@arm.com, alexandru.elisei@arm.com,
	suzuki.poulose@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	ardb@kernel.org, qwandor@google.com, tabba@google.com,
	dbrazdil@google.com, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] KVM: arm64: Add support for tagging shared pages in page-table
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:48:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YPa3+NHt08zz5a1C@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8735s99ttg.wl-maz@kernel.org>

On Tuesday 20 Jul 2021 at 11:13:31 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 16:49:13 +0100,
> Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Monday 19 Jul 2021 at 15:43:34 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 11:47:29 +0100,
> > > Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The hypervisor will soon be in charge of tracking ownership of all
> > > > memory pages in the system. The current page-tracking infrastructure at
> > > > EL2 only allows binary states: a page is either owned or not by an
> > > > entity. But a number of use-cases will require more complex states for
> > > > pages that are shared between two entities (host, hypervisor, or guests).
> > > > 
> > > > In preparation for supporting these use-cases, introduce in the KVM
> > > > page-table library some infrastructure allowing to tag shared pages
> > > > using ignored bits (a.k.a. software bits) in PTEs.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h |  5 +++++
> > > >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c         | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > > > index dd72653314c7..f6d3d5c8910d 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > > > @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ enum kvm_pgtable_stage2_flags {
> > > >   * @KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W:		Write permission.
> > > >   * @KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_R:		Read permission.
> > > >   * @KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_DEVICE:	Device attributes.
> > > > + * @KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_SHARED:	Page shared with another entity.
> > > > + * @KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_BORROWED:	Page borrowed from another entity.
> > > >   */
> > > >  enum kvm_pgtable_prot {
> > > >  	KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_X			= BIT(0),
> > > > @@ -88,6 +90,9 @@ enum kvm_pgtable_prot {
> > > >  	KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_R			= BIT(2),
> > > >  
> > > >  	KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_DEVICE			= BIT(3),
> > > > +
> > > > +	KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_SHARED		= BIT(4),
> > > > +	KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_BORROWED		= BIT(5),
> > > 
> > > I'd rather have some indirection here, as we have other potential
> > > users for the SW bits outside of pKVM (see the NV series, which uses
> > > some of these SW bits as the backend for TTL-based TLB invalidation).
> > > 
> > > Can we instead only describe the SW bit states in this enum, and let
> > > the users map the semantic they require onto that state? See [1] for
> > > what I carry in the NV branch.
> > 
> > Works for me -- I just wanted to make sure we don't have users in
> > different places that use the same bits without knowing, but no strong
> > opinions, so happy to change.
> > 
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > >  #define KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_RW	(KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_R | KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W)
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > index 5bdbe7a31551..51598b79dafc 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > @@ -211,6 +211,29 @@ static kvm_pte_t kvm_init_invalid_leaf_owner(u8 owner_id)
> > > >  	return FIELD_PREP(KVM_INVALID_PTE_OWNER_MASK, owner_id);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static kvm_pte_t pte_ignored_bit_prot(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot)
> > > 
> > > Can we call these sw rather than ignored?
> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> > > > +{
> > > > +	kvm_pte_t ignored_bits = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Ignored bits 0 and 1 are reserved to track the memory ownership
> > > > +	 * state of each page:
> > > > +	 *   00: The page is owned solely by the page-table owner.
> > > > +	 *   01: The page is owned by the page-table owner, but is shared
> > > > +	 *       with another entity.
> > > > +	 *   10: The page is shared with, but not owned by the page-table owner.
> > > > +	 *   11: Reserved for future use (lending).
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_SHARED) {
> > > > +		if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_BORROWED)
> > > > +			ignored_bits |= BIT(1);
> > > > +		else
> > > > +			ignored_bits |= BIT(0);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	return FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_IGNORED, ignored_bits);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  static int kvm_pgtable_visitor_cb(struct kvm_pgtable_walk_data *data, u64 addr,
> > > >  				  u32 level, kvm_pte_t *ptep,
> > > >  				  enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags flag)
> > > > @@ -357,6 +380,7 @@ static int hyp_set_prot_attr(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot, kvm_pte_t *ptep)
> > > >  	attr |= FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S1_AP, ap);
> > > >  	attr |= FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S1_SH, sh);
> > > >  	attr |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S1_AF;
> > > > +	attr |= pte_ignored_bit_prot(prot);
> > > >  	*ptep = attr;
> > > >  
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > > @@ -558,6 +582,7 @@ static int stage2_set_prot_attr(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, enum kvm_pgtable_prot p
> > > >  
> > > >  	attr |= FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S2_SH, sh);
> > > >  	attr |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S2_AF;
> > > > +	attr |= pte_ignored_bit_prot(prot);
> > > >  	*ptep = attr;
> > > >  
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > 
> > > How about kvm_pgtable_stage2_relax_perms()?
> > 
> > It should leave SW bits untouched, and it really felt like a path were
> > we want to change permissions and nothing else. What did you have in
> > mind?
> 
> It isn't clear to me that it would not (cannot?) be used to change
> other bits, given that it takes an arbitrary 'prot' set.

Sure, though it already ignores KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_DEVICE.

I guess the thing I find hard to reason about is that
kvm_pgtable_stage2_relax_perms() is 'additive'. E.g. it can make a
mapping RW if it was RO, but not the other way around. With the current
patch-set it wasn't really clear how that should translate to
KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_SHARED and such.

> If there is
> such an intended restriction, we definitely should document it.

Ack, that's definitely missing. And in fact I should probably make
kvm_pgtable_stage2_relax_perms() return -EINVAL if we're passing prot
values it can't handle.

Cheers,
Quentin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: kernel-team@android.com, qwandor@google.com, will@kernel.org,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] KVM: arm64: Add support for tagging shared pages in page-table
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:48:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YPa3+NHt08zz5a1C@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8735s99ttg.wl-maz@kernel.org>

On Tuesday 20 Jul 2021 at 11:13:31 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 16:49:13 +0100,
> Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Monday 19 Jul 2021 at 15:43:34 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 11:47:29 +0100,
> > > Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The hypervisor will soon be in charge of tracking ownership of all
> > > > memory pages in the system. The current page-tracking infrastructure at
> > > > EL2 only allows binary states: a page is either owned or not by an
> > > > entity. But a number of use-cases will require more complex states for
> > > > pages that are shared between two entities (host, hypervisor, or guests).
> > > > 
> > > > In preparation for supporting these use-cases, introduce in the KVM
> > > > page-table library some infrastructure allowing to tag shared pages
> > > > using ignored bits (a.k.a. software bits) in PTEs.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h |  5 +++++
> > > >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c         | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > > > index dd72653314c7..f6d3d5c8910d 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > > > @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ enum kvm_pgtable_stage2_flags {
> > > >   * @KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W:		Write permission.
> > > >   * @KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_R:		Read permission.
> > > >   * @KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_DEVICE:	Device attributes.
> > > > + * @KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_SHARED:	Page shared with another entity.
> > > > + * @KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_BORROWED:	Page borrowed from another entity.
> > > >   */
> > > >  enum kvm_pgtable_prot {
> > > >  	KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_X			= BIT(0),
> > > > @@ -88,6 +90,9 @@ enum kvm_pgtable_prot {
> > > >  	KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_R			= BIT(2),
> > > >  
> > > >  	KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_DEVICE			= BIT(3),
> > > > +
> > > > +	KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_SHARED		= BIT(4),
> > > > +	KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_BORROWED		= BIT(5),
> > > 
> > > I'd rather have some indirection here, as we have other potential
> > > users for the SW bits outside of pKVM (see the NV series, which uses
> > > some of these SW bits as the backend for TTL-based TLB invalidation).
> > > 
> > > Can we instead only describe the SW bit states in this enum, and let
> > > the users map the semantic they require onto that state? See [1] for
> > > what I carry in the NV branch.
> > 
> > Works for me -- I just wanted to make sure we don't have users in
> > different places that use the same bits without knowing, but no strong
> > opinions, so happy to change.
> > 
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > >  #define KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_RW	(KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_R | KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W)
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > index 5bdbe7a31551..51598b79dafc 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > @@ -211,6 +211,29 @@ static kvm_pte_t kvm_init_invalid_leaf_owner(u8 owner_id)
> > > >  	return FIELD_PREP(KVM_INVALID_PTE_OWNER_MASK, owner_id);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static kvm_pte_t pte_ignored_bit_prot(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot)
> > > 
> > > Can we call these sw rather than ignored?
> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> > > > +{
> > > > +	kvm_pte_t ignored_bits = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Ignored bits 0 and 1 are reserved to track the memory ownership
> > > > +	 * state of each page:
> > > > +	 *   00: The page is owned solely by the page-table owner.
> > > > +	 *   01: The page is owned by the page-table owner, but is shared
> > > > +	 *       with another entity.
> > > > +	 *   10: The page is shared with, but not owned by the page-table owner.
> > > > +	 *   11: Reserved for future use (lending).
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_SHARED) {
> > > > +		if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_BORROWED)
> > > > +			ignored_bits |= BIT(1);
> > > > +		else
> > > > +			ignored_bits |= BIT(0);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	return FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_IGNORED, ignored_bits);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  static int kvm_pgtable_visitor_cb(struct kvm_pgtable_walk_data *data, u64 addr,
> > > >  				  u32 level, kvm_pte_t *ptep,
> > > >  				  enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags flag)
> > > > @@ -357,6 +380,7 @@ static int hyp_set_prot_attr(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot, kvm_pte_t *ptep)
> > > >  	attr |= FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S1_AP, ap);
> > > >  	attr |= FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S1_SH, sh);
> > > >  	attr |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S1_AF;
> > > > +	attr |= pte_ignored_bit_prot(prot);
> > > >  	*ptep = attr;
> > > >  
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > > @@ -558,6 +582,7 @@ static int stage2_set_prot_attr(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, enum kvm_pgtable_prot p
> > > >  
> > > >  	attr |= FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S2_SH, sh);
> > > >  	attr |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S2_AF;
> > > > +	attr |= pte_ignored_bit_prot(prot);
> > > >  	*ptep = attr;
> > > >  
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > 
> > > How about kvm_pgtable_stage2_relax_perms()?
> > 
> > It should leave SW bits untouched, and it really felt like a path were
> > we want to change permissions and nothing else. What did you have in
> > mind?
> 
> It isn't clear to me that it would not (cannot?) be used to change
> other bits, given that it takes an arbitrary 'prot' set.

Sure, though it already ignores KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_DEVICE.

I guess the thing I find hard to reason about is that
kvm_pgtable_stage2_relax_perms() is 'additive'. E.g. it can make a
mapping RW if it was RO, but not the other way around. With the current
patch-set it wasn't really clear how that should translate to
KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_SHARED and such.

> If there is
> such an intended restriction, we definitely should document it.

Ack, that's definitely missing. And in fact I should probably make
kvm_pgtable_stage2_relax_perms() return -EINVAL if we're passing prot
values it can't handle.

Cheers,
Quentin
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: james.morse@arm.com, alexandru.elisei@arm.com,
	suzuki.poulose@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	ardb@kernel.org, qwandor@google.com, tabba@google.com,
	dbrazdil@google.com, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] KVM: arm64: Add support for tagging shared pages in page-table
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:48:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YPa3+NHt08zz5a1C@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8735s99ttg.wl-maz@kernel.org>

On Tuesday 20 Jul 2021 at 11:13:31 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 16:49:13 +0100,
> Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Monday 19 Jul 2021 at 15:43:34 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 11:47:29 +0100,
> > > Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The hypervisor will soon be in charge of tracking ownership of all
> > > > memory pages in the system. The current page-tracking infrastructure at
> > > > EL2 only allows binary states: a page is either owned or not by an
> > > > entity. But a number of use-cases will require more complex states for
> > > > pages that are shared between two entities (host, hypervisor, or guests).
> > > > 
> > > > In preparation for supporting these use-cases, introduce in the KVM
> > > > page-table library some infrastructure allowing to tag shared pages
> > > > using ignored bits (a.k.a. software bits) in PTEs.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h |  5 +++++
> > > >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c         | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > > > index dd72653314c7..f6d3d5c8910d 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > > > @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ enum kvm_pgtable_stage2_flags {
> > > >   * @KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W:		Write permission.
> > > >   * @KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_R:		Read permission.
> > > >   * @KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_DEVICE:	Device attributes.
> > > > + * @KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_SHARED:	Page shared with another entity.
> > > > + * @KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_BORROWED:	Page borrowed from another entity.
> > > >   */
> > > >  enum kvm_pgtable_prot {
> > > >  	KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_X			= BIT(0),
> > > > @@ -88,6 +90,9 @@ enum kvm_pgtable_prot {
> > > >  	KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_R			= BIT(2),
> > > >  
> > > >  	KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_DEVICE			= BIT(3),
> > > > +
> > > > +	KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_SHARED		= BIT(4),
> > > > +	KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_BORROWED		= BIT(5),
> > > 
> > > I'd rather have some indirection here, as we have other potential
> > > users for the SW bits outside of pKVM (see the NV series, which uses
> > > some of these SW bits as the backend for TTL-based TLB invalidation).
> > > 
> > > Can we instead only describe the SW bit states in this enum, and let
> > > the users map the semantic they require onto that state? See [1] for
> > > what I carry in the NV branch.
> > 
> > Works for me -- I just wanted to make sure we don't have users in
> > different places that use the same bits without knowing, but no strong
> > opinions, so happy to change.
> > 
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > >  #define KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_RW	(KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_R | KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W)
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > index 5bdbe7a31551..51598b79dafc 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > @@ -211,6 +211,29 @@ static kvm_pte_t kvm_init_invalid_leaf_owner(u8 owner_id)
> > > >  	return FIELD_PREP(KVM_INVALID_PTE_OWNER_MASK, owner_id);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static kvm_pte_t pte_ignored_bit_prot(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot)
> > > 
> > > Can we call these sw rather than ignored?
> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> > > > +{
> > > > +	kvm_pte_t ignored_bits = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Ignored bits 0 and 1 are reserved to track the memory ownership
> > > > +	 * state of each page:
> > > > +	 *   00: The page is owned solely by the page-table owner.
> > > > +	 *   01: The page is owned by the page-table owner, but is shared
> > > > +	 *       with another entity.
> > > > +	 *   10: The page is shared with, but not owned by the page-table owner.
> > > > +	 *   11: Reserved for future use (lending).
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_SHARED) {
> > > > +		if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_BORROWED)
> > > > +			ignored_bits |= BIT(1);
> > > > +		else
> > > > +			ignored_bits |= BIT(0);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	return FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_IGNORED, ignored_bits);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  static int kvm_pgtable_visitor_cb(struct kvm_pgtable_walk_data *data, u64 addr,
> > > >  				  u32 level, kvm_pte_t *ptep,
> > > >  				  enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags flag)
> > > > @@ -357,6 +380,7 @@ static int hyp_set_prot_attr(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot, kvm_pte_t *ptep)
> > > >  	attr |= FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S1_AP, ap);
> > > >  	attr |= FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S1_SH, sh);
> > > >  	attr |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S1_AF;
> > > > +	attr |= pte_ignored_bit_prot(prot);
> > > >  	*ptep = attr;
> > > >  
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > > @@ -558,6 +582,7 @@ static int stage2_set_prot_attr(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, enum kvm_pgtable_prot p
> > > >  
> > > >  	attr |= FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S2_SH, sh);
> > > >  	attr |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S2_AF;
> > > > +	attr |= pte_ignored_bit_prot(prot);
> > > >  	*ptep = attr;
> > > >  
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > 
> > > How about kvm_pgtable_stage2_relax_perms()?
> > 
> > It should leave SW bits untouched, and it really felt like a path were
> > we want to change permissions and nothing else. What did you have in
> > mind?
> 
> It isn't clear to me that it would not (cannot?) be used to change
> other bits, given that it takes an arbitrary 'prot' set.

Sure, though it already ignores KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_DEVICE.

I guess the thing I find hard to reason about is that
kvm_pgtable_stage2_relax_perms() is 'additive'. E.g. it can make a
mapping RW if it was RO, but not the other way around. With the current
patch-set it wasn't really clear how that should translate to
KVM_PGTABLE_STATE_SHARED and such.

> If there is
> such an intended restriction, we definitely should document it.

Ack, that's definitely missing. And in fact I should probably make
kvm_pgtable_stage2_relax_perms() return -EINVAL if we're passing prot
values it can't handle.

Cheers,
Quentin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-20 11:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 126+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-19 10:47 [PATCH 00/14] Track shared pages at EL2 in protected mode Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47 ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47 ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 01/14] KVM: arm64: Provide the host_stage2_try() helper macro Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 13:57   ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-20 13:57     ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-20 13:57     ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 02/14] KVM: arm64: Optimize kvm_pgtable_stage2_find_range() Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 03/14] KVM: arm64: Continue stage-2 map when re-creating mappings Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 12:14   ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 12:14     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 12:14     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 13:32     ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 13:32       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 13:32       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20  8:26       ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-20  8:26         ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-20  8:26         ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-20 11:56         ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 11:56           ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 11:56           ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 04/14] KVM: arm64: Rename KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_S2_IGNORED Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 05/14] KVM: arm64: Don't overwrite ignored bits with owner id Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 12:55   ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 12:55     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 12:55     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 13:39     ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 13:39       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 13:39       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20  8:46       ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-20  8:46         ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-20  8:46         ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 06/14] KVM: arm64: Tolerate re-creating hyp mappings to set ignored bits Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 10:17   ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-20 10:17     ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-20 10:17     ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-20 10:30     ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 10:30       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 10:30       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 10:59       ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-20 10:59         ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-20 10:59         ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-20 11:14         ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 11:14           ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 11:14           ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 07/14] KVM: arm64: Enable forcing page-level stage-2 mappings Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 14:24   ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 14:24     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 14:24     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 15:36     ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 15:36       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 15:36       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 08/14] KVM: arm64: Add support for tagging shared pages in page-table Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 14:43   ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 14:43     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 14:43     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 15:49     ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 15:49       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 15:49       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 10:13       ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-20 10:13         ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-20 10:13         ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-20 11:48         ` Quentin Perret [this message]
2021-07-20 11:48           ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 11:48           ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 13:48   ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-20 13:48     ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-20 13:48     ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-20 14:06     ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 14:06       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-20 14:06       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-21  7:34       ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-21  7:34         ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-21  7:34         ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 09/14] KVM: arm64: Mark host bss and rodata section as shared Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 15:01   ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 15:01     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 15:01     ` Marc Zyngier
2021-07-19 15:56     ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 15:56       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 15:56       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 10/14] KVM: arm64: Enable retrieving protections attributes of PTEs Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 11/14] KVM: arm64: Expose kvm_pte_valid() helper Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-21  8:20   ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-21  8:20     ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-21  8:20     ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 12/14] KVM: arm64: Refactor pkvm_pgtable locking Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-21  8:37   ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-21  8:37     ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-21  8:37     ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 13/14] KVM: arm64: Restrict hyp stage-1 manipulation in protected mode Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-21 10:45   ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-21 10:45     ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-21 10:45     ` Fuad Tabba
2021-07-21 13:35     ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-21 13:35       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-21 13:35       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47 ` [PATCH 14/14] KVM: arm64: Prevent late calls to __pkvm_create_private_mapping() Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-19 10:47   ` Quentin Perret

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YPa3+NHt08zz5a1C@google.com \
    --to=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dbrazdil@google.com \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=qwandor@google.com \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=tabba@google.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.