From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Set disallowed_nx_huge_page in TDP MMU before setting SPTE
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 16:48:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c976a6e6-963e-d076-053b-15e381c3800a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YvJyw96QZdf6YPAX@google.com>
On 8/9/22 16:44, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 8/9/22 05:26, Yan Zhao wrote:
>>> hi Sean,
>>>
>>> I understand this smp_rmb() is intended to prevent the reading of
>>> p->nx_huge_page_disallowed from happening before it's set to true in
>>> kvm_tdp_mmu_map(). Is this understanding right?
>>>
>>> If it's true, then do we also need the smp_rmb() for read of sp->gfn in
>>> handle_removed_pt()? (or maybe for other fields in sp in other places?)
>>
>> No, in that case the barrier is provided by rcu_dereference(). In fact, I
>> am not sure the barriers are needed in this patch either (but the comments
>> are :)):
>
> Yeah, I'm 99% certain the barriers aren't strictly required, but I didn't love the
> idea of depending on other implementation details for the barriers. Of course I
> completely overlooked the fact that all other sp fields would need the same
> barriers...
>
>> - the write barrier is certainly not needed because it is implicit in
>> tdp_mmu_set_spte_atomic's cmpxchg64
>>
>> - the read barrier _should_ also be provided by rcu_dereference(pt), but I'm
>> not 100% sure about that. The reasoning is that you have
>>
>> (1) iter->old spte = READ_ONCE(*rcu_dereference(iter->sptep));
>> ...
>> (2) tdp_ptep_t pt = spte_to_child_pt(old_spte, level);
>> (3) struct kvm_mmu_page *sp = sptep_to_sp(rcu_dereference(pt));
>> ...
>> (4) if (sp->nx_huge_page_disallowed) {
>>
>> and (4) is definitely ordered after (1) thanks to the READ_ONCE hidden
>> within (3) and the data dependency from old_spte to sp.
>
> Yes, I think that's correct. Callers must verify the SPTE is present before getting
> the associated child shadow page. KVM does have instances where a shadow page is
> retrieved from the SPTE _pointer_, but that's the parent shadow page, i.e. isn't
> guarded by the SPTE being present.
>
> struct kvm_mmu_page *sp = sptep_to_sp(rcu_dereference(iter->sptep));
>
> Something like this is as a separate patch?
Would you resubmit without the memory barriers then?
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h
> index f0af385c56e0..9d982ccf4567 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h
> @@ -13,6 +13,12 @@
> * to be zapped while holding mmu_lock for read, and to allow TLB flushes to be
> * batched without having to collect the list of zapped SPs. Flows that can
> * remove SPs must service pending TLB flushes prior to dropping RCU protection.
> + *
> + * The READ_ONCE() ensures that, if the SPTE points at a child shadow page, all
> + * fields in struct kvm_mmu_page will be read after the caller observes the
> + * present SPTE (KVM must check that the SPTE is present before following the
> + * SPTE's pfn to its associated shadow page). Pairs with the implicit memory
I guess you mean both the shadow page table itself and the struct
kvm_mmu_page? Or do you think to_shadow_page() should have a smp_rmb()?
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-09 14:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-05 23:05 [PATCH v3 0/8] KVM: x86: Apply NX mitigation more precisely Sean Christopherson
2022-08-05 23:05 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Bug the VM if KVM attempts to double count an NX huge page Sean Christopherson
2022-08-14 0:53 ` Mingwei Zhang
2022-08-05 23:05 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Tag disallowed NX huge pages even if they're not tracked Sean Christopherson
2022-08-14 0:53 ` Mingwei Zhang
2022-08-05 23:05 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Rename NX huge pages fields/functions for consistency Sean Christopherson
2022-08-14 1:12 ` Mingwei Zhang
2022-08-15 21:54 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-16 21:09 ` Mingwei Zhang
2022-08-17 16:13 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-18 22:13 ` Mingwei Zhang
2022-08-18 23:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-19 18:30 ` Mingwei Zhang
2022-08-20 1:04 ` Mingwei Zhang
2022-08-05 23:05 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Properly account NX huge page workaround for nonpaging MMUs Sean Christopherson
2022-08-16 21:25 ` Mingwei Zhang
2022-08-05 23:05 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Set disallowed_nx_huge_page in TDP MMU before setting SPTE Sean Christopherson
2022-08-09 3:26 ` Yan Zhao
2022-08-09 12:49 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-09 14:44 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-09 14:48 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2022-08-09 15:05 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-05 23:05 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Track the number of TDP MMU pages, but not the actual pages Sean Christopherson
2022-08-05 23:05 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Add helper to convert SPTE value to its shadow page Sean Christopherson
2022-08-05 23:05 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] KVM: x86/mmu: explicitly check nx_hugepage in disallowed_hugepage_adjust() Sean Christopherson
2022-08-09 12:57 ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-08-09 14:49 ` Sean Christopherson
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=c976a6e6-963e-d076-053b-15e381c3800a@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=bgardon@google.com \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mizhang@google.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=yan.y.zhao@intel.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).