kvm: arm: Skip stage2 huge mappings for unaligned ipa backed by THP
diff mbox series

Message ID 1554203176-3958-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com
State Superseded
Headers show
Series
  • kvm: arm: Skip stage2 huge mappings for unaligned ipa backed by THP
Related show

Commit Message

Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose April 2, 2019, 11:06 a.m. UTC
With commit a80868f398554842b14, we no longer ensure that the
THP page is properly aligned in the guest IPA. Skip the stage2
huge mapping for unaligned IPA backed by transparent hugepages.

Fixes: a80868f398554842b14 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Enforce PTE mappings at stage2 when needed")
Reported-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: Chirstoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
Cc: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Cc: Zheng Xiang <zhengxiang9@huawei.com>
Tested-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
---
 virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Andrew Murray April 2, 2019, 3:53 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 12:06:16PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> With commit a80868f398554842b14, we no longer ensure that the
> THP page is properly aligned in the guest IPA. Skip the stage2
> huge mapping for unaligned IPA backed by transparent hugepages.
> 
> Fixes: a80868f398554842b14 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Enforce PTE mappings at stage2 when needed")
> Reported-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> Cc: Chirstoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
> Cc: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
> Cc: Zheng Xiang <zhengxiang9@huawei.com>
> Tested-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> ---
>  virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> index 27c9583..4a22f5b 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> @@ -1412,7 +1412,9 @@ static bool transparent_hugepage_adjust(kvm_pfn_t *pfnp, phys_addr_t *ipap)
>  		 * page accordingly.
>  		 */
>  		mask = PTRS_PER_PMD - 1;
> -		VM_BUG_ON((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask));
> +		/* Skip memslots with unaligned IPA and user address */
> +		if ((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask))
> +			return false;
>  		if (pfn & mask) {
>  			*ipap &= PMD_MASK;
>  			kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
> -- 
> 2.7.4

I was able to reproduce this issue on v5.1-rc3 on a SoftIron Overdrive 1000
(AMD Seattle (Rev.B1)) with defconfig+ARM64_64K_PAGES with:

qemu-system-aarch64 -cpu host -machine type=virt,accel=kvm -nographic -smp 4
-m 4096 -kernel /boot/vmlinuz-4.9.0-7-arm64 --append "console=ttyAMA0
default_hugepagesz=2M hugepages=256"

The 'default_hugepagesz=2M hugepages=256' had no effect on the reproducibility,
however the guest only intermittently failed to boot. Applying the above
patch fixed this and the guest boots every time.

Tested-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>

Thanks,

Andrew Murray

> 
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
Zenghui Yu April 8, 2019, 3:50 a.m. UTC | #2
On 2019/4/2 19:06, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> With commit a80868f398554842b14, we no longer ensure that the
> THP page is properly aligned in the guest IPA. Skip the stage2
> huge mapping for unaligned IPA backed by transparent hugepages.
> 
> Fixes: a80868f398554842b14 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Enforce PTE mappings at stage2 when needed")
> Reported-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> Cc: Chirstoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
> Cc: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
> Cc: Zheng Xiang <zhengxiang9@huawei.com>
> Tested-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>

Hi Suzuki,

Why not making use of fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping()?  Let it do
some checks for us.

fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() was intended to do a *two-step*
check to tell us that can we create stage2 huge block mappings, and this
check is both for hugetlbfs and THP.  With commit a80868f398554842b14,
we pass PAGE_SIZE as "map_size" for normal size pages (which turned out
to be almost meaningless), and unfortunately the THP check no longer
works.

So we want to rework *THP* check process.  Your patch fixes the first
checking-step, but the second is still missed, am I wrong?

Can you please give a look at the below diff?


thanks,

zenghui

> ---
>   virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 4 +++-
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> index 27c9583..4a22f5b 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> @@ -1412,7 +1412,9 @@ static bool transparent_hugepage_adjust(kvm_pfn_t *pfnp, phys_addr_t *ipap)
>   		 * page accordingly.
>   		 */
>   		mask = PTRS_PER_PMD - 1;
> -		VM_BUG_ON((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask));
Somehow, I'd prefer keeping the VM_BUG_ON() here, let it report some
potential issues in the future (of course I hope none:) )
> +		/* Skip memslots with unaligned IPA and user address */
> +		if ((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask))
> +			return false;
>   		if (pfn & mask) {
>   			*ipap &= PMD_MASK;
>   			kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
> 

---8>---

Rework fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), let it check THP again.

Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
---
  virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 11 ++++++++++-
  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
index 27c9583..5e1b258 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
@@ -1632,6 +1632,15 @@ static bool 
fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
  	uaddr_end = uaddr_start + size;

  	/*
+	 * If the memslot is _not_ backed by hugetlbfs, then check if it
+	 * can be backed by transparent hugepages.
+	 *
+	 * Currently only PMD_SIZE THPs are supported, revisit it later.
+	 */
+	if (map_size == PAGE_SIZE)
+		map_size = PMD_SIZE;
+
+	/*
  	 * Pages belonging to memslots that don't have the same alignment
  	 * within a PMD/PUD for userspace and IPA cannot be mapped with stage-2
  	 * PMD/PUD entries, because we'll end up mapping the wrong pages.
@@ -1643,7 +1652,7 @@ static bool 
fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
  	 *    |abcde|fgh  Stage-1 block  |    Stage-1 block tv|xyz|
  	 *    +-----+--------------------+--------------------+---+
  	 *
-	 *    memslot->base_gfn << PAGE_SIZE:
+	 *    memslot->base_gfn << PAGE_SHIFT:
  	 *      +---+--------------------+--------------------+-----+
  	 *      |abc|def  Stage-2 block  |    Stage-2 block   |tvxyz|
  	 *      +---+--------------------+--------------------+-----+
--
Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose April 8, 2019, 10:35 a.m. UTC | #3
On 04/08/2019 04:50 AM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019/4/2 19:06, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> With commit a80868f398554842b14, we no longer ensure that the
>> THP page is properly aligned in the guest IPA. Skip the stage2
>> huge mapping for unaligned IPA backed by transparent hugepages.
>>
>> Fixes: a80868f398554842b14 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Enforce PTE mappings at 
>> stage2 when needed")
>> Reported-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>> Cc: Chirstoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
>> Cc: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>> Cc: Zheng Xiang <zhengxiang9@huawei.com>
>> Tested-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> 
> Hi Suzuki,
> 
> Why not making use of fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping()?  Let it do
> some checks for us.
> 
> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() was intended to do a *two-step*
> check to tell us that can we create stage2 huge block mappings, and this
> check is both for hugetlbfs and THP.  With commit a80868f398554842b14,
> we pass PAGE_SIZE as "map_size" for normal size pages (which turned out
> to be almost meaningless), and unfortunately the THP check no longer
> works.

Thats correct.

> 
> So we want to rework *THP* check process.  Your patch fixes the first
> checking-step, but the second is still missed, am I wrong?

It fixes the step explicitly for the THP by making sure that the GPA and
the HVA are aligned to the map size.

> 
> Can you please give a look at the below diff?
> 
> 
> thanks,
> 
> zenghui
> 
>> ---
>>   virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 4 +++-
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>> index 27c9583..4a22f5b 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>> @@ -1412,7 +1412,9 @@ static bool 
>> transparent_hugepage_adjust(kvm_pfn_t *pfnp, phys_addr_t *ipap)
>>            * page accordingly.
>>            */
>>           mask = PTRS_PER_PMD - 1;
>> -        VM_BUG_ON((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask));
> Somehow, I'd prefer keeping the VM_BUG_ON() here, let it report some
> potential issues in the future (of course I hope none:) )

I don't think this calls for a VM_BUG_ON(). It is simply a case where
the GPA is not aligned to HVA, but for normal VMA that could be made THP.

We had this VM_BUG_ON(), which would have never hit because we would
have set force_pte if they were not aligned.

>> +        /* Skip memslots with unaligned IPA and user address */
>> +        if ((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask))
>> +            return false;
>>           if (pfn & mask) {
>>               *ipap &= PMD_MASK;
>>               kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
>>
> 
> ---8>---
> 
> Rework fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), let it check THP again.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
> ---
>   virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> index 27c9583..5e1b258 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> @@ -1632,6 +1632,15 @@ static bool 
> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
>       uaddr_end = uaddr_start + size;
> 
>       /*
> +     * If the memslot is _not_ backed by hugetlbfs, then check if it
> +     * can be backed by transparent hugepages.
> +     *
> +     * Currently only PMD_SIZE THPs are supported, revisit it later.
> +     */
> +    if (map_size == PAGE_SIZE)
> +        map_size = PMD_SIZE;
> +

This looks hackish. What is we support PUD_SIZE huge page in the future
?

> +    /*
>        * Pages belonging to memslots that don't have the same alignment
>        * within a PMD/PUD for userspace and IPA cannot be mapped with 
> stage-2
>        * PMD/PUD entries, because we'll end up mapping the wrong pages.
> @@ -1643,7 +1652,7 @@ static bool 
> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
>        *    |abcde|fgh  Stage-1 block  |    Stage-1 block tv|xyz|
>        *    +-----+--------------------+--------------------+---+
>        *
> -     *    memslot->base_gfn << PAGE_SIZE:
> +     *    memslot->base_gfn << PAGE_SHIFT:

That could be fixed.

>        *      +---+--------------------+--------------------+-----+
>        *      |abc|def  Stage-2 block  |    Stage-2 block   |tvxyz|
>        *      +---+--------------------+--------------------+-----+


But personally I don't think this is the right way to fix it. And as
mentioned, the VM_BUG_ON() is unnecessary and could easily be triggered
by the user by using unaligned GPA/HVA. All we need to do is, use page
mapping in such cases, which we do with my patch.


Cheers
Suzuki
Zenghui Yu April 8, 2019, 3:11 p.m. UTC | #4
Hi Suzuki,

Thanks for the reply.

On 2019/4/8 18:35, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 04/08/2019 04:50 AM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2019/4/2 19:06, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>> With commit a80868f398554842b14, we no longer ensure that the
>>> THP page is properly aligned in the guest IPA. Skip the stage2
>>> huge mapping for unaligned IPA backed by transparent hugepages.
>>>
>>> Fixes: a80868f398554842b14 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Enforce PTE mappings at 
>>> stage2 when needed")
>>> Reported-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>>> Cc: Chirstoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
>>> Cc: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>>> Cc: Zheng Xiang <zhengxiang9@huawei.com>
>>> Tested-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@arm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>>
>> Hi Suzuki,
>>
>> Why not making use of fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping()?  Let it do
>> some checks for us.
>>
>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() was intended to do a *two-step*
>> check to tell us that can we create stage2 huge block mappings, and this
>> check is both for hugetlbfs and THP.  With commit a80868f398554842b14,
>> we pass PAGE_SIZE as "map_size" for normal size pages (which turned out
>> to be almost meaningless), and unfortunately the THP check no longer
>> works.
> 
> Thats correct.
> 
>>
>> So we want to rework *THP* check process.  Your patch fixes the first
>> checking-step, but the second is still missed, am I wrong?
> 
> It fixes the step explicitly for the THP by making sure that the GPA and
> the HVA are aligned to the map size.

Yes, I understand how your patch had fixed the issue.  But what I'm
really concerned about here is the *second* checking-step in
fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping().

We have to check if we are mapping a non-block aligned or non-block
sized memslot, if so, we can not create block mappings for the beginning
and end of this memslot.  This is what the second part of
fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() had done.

I haven't seen this checking-step in your patch, did I miss something?

>>
>> Can you please give a look at the below diff?
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> zenghui
>>
>>> ---
>>>   virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 4 +++-
>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>> index 27c9583..4a22f5b 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>> @@ -1412,7 +1412,9 @@ static bool 
>>> transparent_hugepage_adjust(kvm_pfn_t *pfnp, phys_addr_t *ipap)
>>>            * page accordingly.
>>>            */
>>>           mask = PTRS_PER_PMD - 1;
>>> -        VM_BUG_ON((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask));
>> Somehow, I'd prefer keeping the VM_BUG_ON() here, let it report some
>> potential issues in the future (of course I hope none:) )
> 
> I don't think this calls for a VM_BUG_ON(). It is simply a case where
> the GPA is not aligned to HVA, but for normal VMA that could be made THP.
> 
> We had this VM_BUG_ON(), which would have never hit because we would
> have set force_pte if they were not aligned.

Yes, I agree.

>>> +        /* Skip memslots with unaligned IPA and user address */
>>> +        if ((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask))
>>> +            return false;
>>>           if (pfn & mask) {
>>>               *ipap &= PMD_MASK;
>>>               kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
>>>
>>
>> ---8>---
>>
>> Rework fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), let it check THP again.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>> index 27c9583..5e1b258 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>> @@ -1632,6 +1632,15 @@ static bool 
>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
>>       uaddr_end = uaddr_start + size;
>>
>>       /*
>> +     * If the memslot is _not_ backed by hugetlbfs, then check if it
>> +     * can be backed by transparent hugepages.
>> +     *
>> +     * Currently only PMD_SIZE THPs are supported, revisit it later.
>> +     */
>> +    if (map_size == PAGE_SIZE)
>> +        map_size = PMD_SIZE;
>> +
> 
> This looks hackish. What is we support PUD_SIZE huge page in the future
> ?

Yes, this might make the code a little difficult to understand. But by
doing so, we follow the same logic before commit a80868f398554842b14,
that said, we do the two-step checking for normal size pages in
fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), to decide if we can create THP
mappings for these pages.

As for PUD_SIZE THPs, to be honest, I have no idea now :(



thanks,

zenghui

>> +    /*
>>        * Pages belonging to memslots that don't have the same alignment
>>        * within a PMD/PUD for userspace and IPA cannot be mapped with 
>> stage-2
>>        * PMD/PUD entries, because we'll end up mapping the wrong pages.
>> @@ -1643,7 +1652,7 @@ static bool 
>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
>>        *    |abcde|fgh  Stage-1 block  |    Stage-1 block tv|xyz|
>>        *    +-----+--------------------+--------------------+---+
>>        *
>> -     *    memslot->base_gfn << PAGE_SIZE:
>> +     *    memslot->base_gfn << PAGE_SHIFT:
> 
> That could be fixed.
> 
>>        *      +---+--------------------+--------------------+-----+
>>        *      |abc|def  Stage-2 block  |    Stage-2 block   |tvxyz|
>>        *      +---+--------------------+--------------------+-----+
> 
> 
> But personally I don't think this is the right way to fix it. And as
> mentioned, the VM_BUG_ON() is unnecessary and could easily be triggered
> by the user by using unaligned GPA/HVA. All we need to do is, use page
> mapping in such cases, which we do with my patch.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Suzuki
> 
> .
Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose April 8, 2019, 6:40 p.m. UTC | #5
Hi Zenhui,

On 04/08/2019 04:11 PM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> Hi Suzuki,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> 

...

>>> Hi Suzuki,
>>>
>>> Why not making use of fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping()?  Let it do
>>> some checks for us.
>>>
>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() was intended to do a *two-step*
>>> check to tell us that can we create stage2 huge block mappings, and this
>>> check is both for hugetlbfs and THP.  With commit a80868f398554842b14,
>>> we pass PAGE_SIZE as "map_size" for normal size pages (which turned out
>>> to be almost meaningless), and unfortunately the THP check no longer
>>> works.
>>
>> Thats correct.
>>
>>>
>>> So we want to rework *THP* check process.  Your patch fixes the first
>>> checking-step, but the second is still missed, am I wrong?
>>
>> It fixes the step explicitly for the THP by making sure that the GPA and
>> the HVA are aligned to the map size.
> 
> Yes, I understand how your patch had fixed the issue.  But what I'm
> really concerned about here is the *second* checking-step in
> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping().
> 
> We have to check if we are mapping a non-block aligned or non-block
> sized memslot, if so, we can not create block mappings for the beginning
> and end of this memslot.  This is what the second part of
> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() had done.
> 
> I haven't seen this checking-step in your patch, did I miss something?
> 

I see.

>> I don't think this calls for a VM_BUG_ON(). It is simply a case where
>> the GPA is not aligned to HVA, but for normal VMA that could be made THP.
>>
>> We had this VM_BUG_ON(), which would have never hit because we would
>> have set force_pte if they were not aligned.
> 
> Yes, I agree.
> 
>>>> +        /* Skip memslots with unaligned IPA and user address */
>>>> +        if ((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask))
>>>> +            return false;
>>>>           if (pfn & mask) {
>>>>               *ipap &= PMD_MASK;
>>>>               kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---8>---
>>>
>>> Rework fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), let it check THP again.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>   virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>> index 27c9583..5e1b258 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>> @@ -1632,6 +1632,15 @@ static bool 
>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
>>>       uaddr_end = uaddr_start + size;
>>>
>>>       /*
>>> +     * If the memslot is _not_ backed by hugetlbfs, then check if it
>>> +     * can be backed by transparent hugepages.
>>> +     *
>>> +     * Currently only PMD_SIZE THPs are supported, revisit it later.
>>> +     */
>>> +    if (map_size == PAGE_SIZE)
>>> +        map_size = PMD_SIZE;
>>> +
>>
>> This looks hackish. What is we support PUD_SIZE huge page in the future
>> ?
> 
> Yes, this might make the code a little difficult to understand. But by
> doing so, we follow the same logic before commit a80868f398554842b14,
> that said, we do the two-step checking for normal size pages in
> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), to decide if we can create THP
> mappings for these pages.
> 
> As for PUD_SIZE THPs, to be honest, I have no idea now :(

How about the following diff ?

diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
index 97b5417..98e5cec 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
@@ -1791,7 +1791,8 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, 
phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
  		 * currently supported. This code will need to be
  		 * updated to support other THP sizes.
  		 */
-		if (transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa))
+		if (fault_supports_stage2_huge_mappings(memslot, hva, PMD_SIZE) &&
+		    transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa))
  			vma_pagesize = PMD_SIZE;
  	}
Zenghui Yu April 9, 2019, 8:05 a.m. UTC | #6
On 2019/4/9 2:40, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Hi Zenhui,
> 
> On 04/08/2019 04:11 PM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>> Hi Suzuki,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply.
>>
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> Hi Suzuki,
>>>>
>>>> Why not making use of fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping()?  Let it do
>>>> some checks for us.
>>>>
>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() was intended to do a *two-step*
>>>> check to tell us that can we create stage2 huge block mappings, and 
>>>> this
>>>> check is both for hugetlbfs and THP.  With commit a80868f398554842b14,
>>>> we pass PAGE_SIZE as "map_size" for normal size pages (which turned out
>>>> to be almost meaningless), and unfortunately the THP check no longer
>>>> works.
>>>
>>> Thats correct.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So we want to rework *THP* check process.  Your patch fixes the first
>>>> checking-step, but the second is still missed, am I wrong?
>>>
>>> It fixes the step explicitly for the THP by making sure that the GPA and
>>> the HVA are aligned to the map size.
>>
>> Yes, I understand how your patch had fixed the issue.  But what I'm
>> really concerned about here is the *second* checking-step in
>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping().
>>
>> We have to check if we are mapping a non-block aligned or non-block
>> sized memslot, if so, we can not create block mappings for the beginning
>> and end of this memslot.  This is what the second part of
>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() had done.
>>
>> I haven't seen this checking-step in your patch, did I miss something?
>>
> 
> I see.
> 
>>> I don't think this calls for a VM_BUG_ON(). It is simply a case where
>>> the GPA is not aligned to HVA, but for normal VMA that could be made 
>>> THP.
>>>
>>> We had this VM_BUG_ON(), which would have never hit because we would
>>> have set force_pte if they were not aligned.
>>
>> Yes, I agree.
>>
>>>>> +        /* Skip memslots with unaligned IPA and user address */
>>>>> +        if ((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask))
>>>>> +            return false;
>>>>>           if (pfn & mask) {
>>>>>               *ipap &= PMD_MASK;
>>>>>               kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---8>---
>>>>
>>>> Rework fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), let it check THP again.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> index 27c9583..5e1b258 100644
>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> @@ -1632,6 +1632,15 @@ static bool 
>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
>>>>       uaddr_end = uaddr_start + size;
>>>>
>>>>       /*
>>>> +     * If the memslot is _not_ backed by hugetlbfs, then check if it
>>>> +     * can be backed by transparent hugepages.
>>>> +     *
>>>> +     * Currently only PMD_SIZE THPs are supported, revisit it later.
>>>> +     */
>>>> +    if (map_size == PAGE_SIZE)
>>>> +        map_size = PMD_SIZE;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> This looks hackish. What is we support PUD_SIZE huge page in the future
>>> ?
>>
>> Yes, this might make the code a little difficult to understand. But by
>> doing so, we follow the same logic before commit a80868f398554842b14,
>> that said, we do the two-step checking for normal size pages in
>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), to decide if we can create THP
>> mappings for these pages.
>>
>> As for PUD_SIZE THPs, to be honest, I have no idea now :(
> 
> How about the following diff ?
> 
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> index 97b5417..98e5cec 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
> @@ -1791,7 +1791,8 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, 
> phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>            * currently supported. This code will need to be
>            * updated to support other THP sizes.
>            */
> -        if (transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa))
> +        if (fault_supports_stage2_huge_mappings(memslot, hva, PMD_SIZE) &&
> +            transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa))
>               vma_pagesize = PMD_SIZE;
>       }

I think this is good enough for the issue.

(One minor concern: With this change, it seems that we no longer need
"force_pte" and can just use "logging_active" instead. But this is not
much related to what we're fixing.)


thanks.
Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose April 9, 2019, 2:59 p.m. UTC | #7
Hi Zenghui

On 04/09/2019 09:05 AM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019/4/9 2:40, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> Hi Zenhui,
>>
>> On 04/08/2019 04:11 PM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>>> Hi Suzuki,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the reply.
>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> Hi Suzuki,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not making use of fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping()?  Let it do
>>>>> some checks for us.
>>>>>
>>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() was intended to do a *two-step*
>>>>> check to tell us that can we create stage2 huge block mappings, and 
>>>>> this
>>>>> check is both for hugetlbfs and THP.  With commit a80868f398554842b14,
>>>>> we pass PAGE_SIZE as "map_size" for normal size pages (which turned 
>>>>> out
>>>>> to be almost meaningless), and unfortunately the THP check no longer
>>>>> works.
>>>>
>>>> Thats correct.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So we want to rework *THP* check process.  Your patch fixes the first
>>>>> checking-step, but the second is still missed, am I wrong?
>>>>
>>>> It fixes the step explicitly for the THP by making sure that the GPA 
>>>> and
>>>> the HVA are aligned to the map size.
>>>
>>> Yes, I understand how your patch had fixed the issue.  But what I'm
>>> really concerned about here is the *second* checking-step in
>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping().
>>>
>>> We have to check if we are mapping a non-block aligned or non-block
>>> sized memslot, if so, we can not create block mappings for the beginning
>>> and end of this memslot.  This is what the second part of
>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() had done.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen this checking-step in your patch, did I miss something?
>>>
>>
>> I see.
>>
>>>> I don't think this calls for a VM_BUG_ON(). It is simply a case where
>>>> the GPA is not aligned to HVA, but for normal VMA that could be made 
>>>> THP.
>>>>
>>>> We had this VM_BUG_ON(), which would have never hit because we would
>>>> have set force_pte if they were not aligned.
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree.
>>>
>>>>>> +        /* Skip memslots with unaligned IPA and user address */
>>>>>> +        if ((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask))
>>>>>> +            return false;
>>>>>>           if (pfn & mask) {
>>>>>>               *ipap &= PMD_MASK;
>>>>>>               kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---8>---
>>>>>
>>>>> Rework fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), let it check THP again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>>>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>> index 27c9583..5e1b258 100644
>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>> @@ -1632,6 +1632,15 @@ static bool 
>>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
>>>>>       uaddr_end = uaddr_start + size;
>>>>>
>>>>>       /*
>>>>> +     * If the memslot is _not_ backed by hugetlbfs, then check if it
>>>>> +     * can be backed by transparent hugepages.
>>>>> +     *
>>>>> +     * Currently only PMD_SIZE THPs are supported, revisit it later.
>>>>> +     */
>>>>> +    if (map_size == PAGE_SIZE)
>>>>> +        map_size = PMD_SIZE;
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> This looks hackish. What is we support PUD_SIZE huge page in the future
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> Yes, this might make the code a little difficult to understand. But by
>>> doing so, we follow the same logic before commit a80868f398554842b14,
>>> that said, we do the two-step checking for normal size pages in
>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), to decide if we can create THP
>>> mappings for these pages.
>>>
>>> As for PUD_SIZE THPs, to be honest, I have no idea now :(
>>
>> How about the following diff ?
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>> index 97b5417..98e5cec 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>> @@ -1791,7 +1791,8 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, 
>> phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>            * currently supported. This code will need to be
>>            * updated to support other THP sizes.
>>            */
>> -        if (transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa))
>> +        if (fault_supports_stage2_huge_mappings(memslot, hva, 
>> PMD_SIZE) &&
>> +            transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa))
>>               vma_pagesize = PMD_SIZE;
>>       }
> 
> I think this is good enough for the issue.
> 
> (One minor concern: With this change, it seems that we no longer need
> "force_pte" and can just use "logging_active" instead. But this is not
> much related to what we're fixing.)

I would still leave the force_pte there to avoid checking for a THP case
in a situation where we forced to PTE level mapping on a hugepage backed
VMA. It would serve to avoid another check.

Cheers
Suzuki


> 
> 
> thanks.
> 
>
Zenghui Yu April 10, 2019, 2:20 a.m. UTC | #8
On 2019/4/9 22:59, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Hi Zenghui
> 
> On 04/09/2019 09:05 AM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2019/4/9 2:40, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>> Hi Zenhui,
>>>
>>> On 04/08/2019 04:11 PM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>>>> Hi Suzuki,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the reply.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>> Hi Suzuki,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not making use of fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping()?  Let 
>>>>>> it do
>>>>>> some checks for us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() was intended to do a *two-step*
>>>>>> check to tell us that can we create stage2 huge block mappings, 
>>>>>> and this
>>>>>> check is both for hugetlbfs and THP.  With commit 
>>>>>> a80868f398554842b14,
>>>>>> we pass PAGE_SIZE as "map_size" for normal size pages (which 
>>>>>> turned out
>>>>>> to be almost meaningless), and unfortunately the THP check no longer
>>>>>> works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we want to rework *THP* check process.  Your patch fixes the first
>>>>>> checking-step, but the second is still missed, am I wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> It fixes the step explicitly for the THP by making sure that the 
>>>>> GPA and
>>>>> the HVA are aligned to the map size.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I understand how your patch had fixed the issue.  But what I'm
>>>> really concerned about here is the *second* checking-step in
>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping().
>>>>
>>>> We have to check if we are mapping a non-block aligned or non-block
>>>> sized memslot, if so, we can not create block mappings for the 
>>>> beginning
>>>> and end of this memslot.  This is what the second part of
>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() had done.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen this checking-step in your patch, did I miss something?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see.
>>>
>>>>> I don't think this calls for a VM_BUG_ON(). It is simply a case where
>>>>> the GPA is not aligned to HVA, but for normal VMA that could be 
>>>>> made THP.
>>>>>
>>>>> We had this VM_BUG_ON(), which would have never hit because we would
>>>>> have set force_pte if they were not aligned.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree.
>>>>
>>>>>>> +        /* Skip memslots with unaligned IPA and user address */
>>>>>>> +        if ((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask))
>>>>>>> +            return false;
>>>>>>>           if (pfn & mask) {
>>>>>>>               *ipap &= PMD_MASK;
>>>>>>>               kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---8>---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rework fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), let it check THP again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>>>>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>> index 27c9583..5e1b258 100644
>>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>> @@ -1632,6 +1632,15 @@ static bool 
>>>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
>>>>>>       uaddr_end = uaddr_start + size;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       /*
>>>>>> +     * If the memslot is _not_ backed by hugetlbfs, then check if it
>>>>>> +     * can be backed by transparent hugepages.
>>>>>> +     *
>>>>>> +     * Currently only PMD_SIZE THPs are supported, revisit it later.
>>>>>> +     */
>>>>>> +    if (map_size == PAGE_SIZE)
>>>>>> +        map_size = PMD_SIZE;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks hackish. What is we support PUD_SIZE huge page in the 
>>>>> future
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this might make the code a little difficult to understand. But by
>>>> doing so, we follow the same logic before commit a80868f398554842b14,
>>>> that said, we do the two-step checking for normal size pages in
>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), to decide if we can create THP
>>>> mappings for these pages.
>>>>
>>>> As for PUD_SIZE THPs, to be honest, I have no idea now :(
>>>
>>> How about the following diff ?
>>>
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>> index 97b5417..98e5cec 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>> @@ -1791,7 +1791,8 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>            * currently supported. This code will need to be
>>>            * updated to support other THP sizes.
>>>            */
>>> -        if (transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa))
>>> +        if (fault_supports_stage2_huge_mappings(memslot, hva, 
>>> PMD_SIZE) &&
>>> +            transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa))
>>>               vma_pagesize = PMD_SIZE;
>>>       }
>>
>> I think this is good enough for the issue.
>>
>> (One minor concern: With this change, it seems that we no longer need
>> "force_pte" and can just use "logging_active" instead. But this is not
>> much related to what we're fixing.)
> 
> I would still leave the force_pte there to avoid checking for a THP case
> in a situation where we forced to PTE level mapping on a hugepage backed
> VMA. It would serve to avoid another check.

Hi Suzuki,

Yes, I agree, thanks.


zenghui
Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose April 10, 2019, 8:39 a.m. UTC | #9
On 10/04/2019 03:20, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> 
> On 2019/4/9 22:59, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> Hi Zenghui
>>
>> On 04/09/2019 09:05 AM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2019/4/9 2:40, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>> Hi Zenhui,
>>>>
>>>> On 04/08/2019 04:11 PM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>>>>> Hi Suzuki,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the reply.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Suzuki,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not making use of fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping()?  Let
>>>>>>> it do
>>>>>>> some checks for us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() was intended to do a *two-step*
>>>>>>> check to tell us that can we create stage2 huge block mappings,
>>>>>>> and this
>>>>>>> check is both for hugetlbfs and THP.  With commit
>>>>>>> a80868f398554842b14,
>>>>>>> we pass PAGE_SIZE as "map_size" for normal size pages (which
>>>>>>> turned out
>>>>>>> to be almost meaningless), and unfortunately the THP check no longer
>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thats correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So we want to rework *THP* check process.  Your patch fixes the first
>>>>>>> checking-step, but the second is still missed, am I wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It fixes the step explicitly for the THP by making sure that the
>>>>>> GPA and
>>>>>> the HVA are aligned to the map size.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I understand how your patch had fixed the issue.  But what I'm
>>>>> really concerned about here is the *second* checking-step in
>>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping().
>>>>>
>>>>> We have to check if we are mapping a non-block aligned or non-block
>>>>> sized memslot, if so, we can not create block mappings for the
>>>>> beginning
>>>>> and end of this memslot.  This is what the second part of
>>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping() had done.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't seen this checking-step in your patch, did I miss something?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see.
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think this calls for a VM_BUG_ON(). It is simply a case where
>>>>>> the GPA is not aligned to HVA, but for normal VMA that could be
>>>>>> made THP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We had this VM_BUG_ON(), which would have never hit because we would
>>>>>> have set force_pte if they were not aligned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +        /* Skip memslots with unaligned IPA and user address */
>>>>>>>> +        if ((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask))
>>>>>>>> +            return false;
>>>>>>>>            if (pfn & mask) {
>>>>>>>>                *ipap &= PMD_MASK;
>>>>>>>>                kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---8>---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rework fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), let it check THP again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>    virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>>>>>>    1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>>> index 27c9583..5e1b258 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>>> @@ -1632,6 +1632,15 @@ static bool
>>>>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
>>>>>>>        uaddr_end = uaddr_start + size;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        /*
>>>>>>> +     * If the memslot is _not_ backed by hugetlbfs, then check if it
>>>>>>> +     * can be backed by transparent hugepages.
>>>>>>> +     *
>>>>>>> +     * Currently only PMD_SIZE THPs are supported, revisit it later.
>>>>>>> +     */
>>>>>>> +    if (map_size == PAGE_SIZE)
>>>>>>> +        map_size = PMD_SIZE;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks hackish. What is we support PUD_SIZE huge page in the
>>>>>> future
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this might make the code a little difficult to understand. But by
>>>>> doing so, we follow the same logic before commit a80868f398554842b14,
>>>>> that said, we do the two-step checking for normal size pages in
>>>>> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(), to decide if we can create THP
>>>>> mappings for these pages.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for PUD_SIZE THPs, to be honest, I have no idea now :(
>>>>
>>>> How about the following diff ?
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> index 97b5417..98e5cec 100644
>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> @@ -1791,7 +1791,8 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu
>>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>             * currently supported. This code will need to be
>>>>             * updated to support other THP sizes.
>>>>             */
>>>> -        if (transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa))
>>>> +        if (fault_supports_stage2_huge_mappings(memslot, hva,
>>>> PMD_SIZE) &&
>>>> +            transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa))
>>>>                vma_pagesize = PMD_SIZE;
>>>>        }
>>>
>>> I think this is good enough for the issue.
>>>
>>> (One minor concern: With this change, it seems that we no longer need
>>> "force_pte" and can just use "logging_active" instead. But this is not
>>> much related to what we're fixing.)
>>
>> I would still leave the force_pte there to avoid checking for a THP case
>> in a situation where we forced to PTE level mapping on a hugepage backed
>> VMA. It would serve to avoid another check.
> 
> Hi Suzuki,
> 
> Yes, I agree, thanks.

Cool, I have a patch to fix this properly and two other patches to clean up
and unify the way we handle the THP backed hugepages. Will send them out after
a bit of testing, later today.

Cheers
Suzuki

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
index 27c9583..4a22f5b 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
@@ -1412,7 +1412,9 @@  static bool transparent_hugepage_adjust(kvm_pfn_t *pfnp, phys_addr_t *ipap)
 		 * page accordingly.
 		 */
 		mask = PTRS_PER_PMD - 1;
-		VM_BUG_ON((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask));
+		/* Skip memslots with unaligned IPA and user address */
+		if ((gfn & mask) != (pfn & mask))
+			return false;
 		if (pfn & mask) {
 			*ipap &= PMD_MASK;
 			kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);