[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: x86: add a new page track hook track_remove_slot

[Sean Christopherson]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:24:16PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 04:32:34PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 12:43:07AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > > > > > And I'm also not sure if a slots_arch_lock is required for
> > > > > > > kvm_slot_page_track_add_page() and kvm_slot_page_track_remove_page().
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's not required.  slots_arch_lock protects interaction between memslot updates
> > > > > In kvm_slot_page_track_add_page() and kvm_slot_page_track_remove_page(),
> > > > > slot->arch.gfn_track[mode][index] is updated in update_gfn_track(),
> > > > > do you know which lock is used to protect it?
> > > > 
> > > > mmu_lock protects the count, kvm->srcu protects the slot, and shadow_root_allocated
> > > > protects that validity of gfn_track, i.e. shadow_root_allocated ensures that KVM
> > > > allocates gfn_track for all memslots when shadow paging is activated.
> > > Hmm, thanks for the reply.
> > > but in direct_page_fault(),
> > > if (page_fault_handle_page_track(vcpu, fault))
> > > 	return RET_PF_EMULATE;
> > > 
> > > slot->arch.gfn_track is read without any mmu_lock is held.
> > 
> > That's a fast path that deliberately reads out of mmu_lock.  A false positive
> > only results in unnecessary emulation, and any false positive is inherently prone
> > to races anyways, e.g. fault racing with zap.
> what about false negative?
> If the fast path read 0 count, no page track write callback will be called and write
> protection will be removed in the slow path.

No.  For a false negative to occur, a different task would have to create a SPTE
and write-protect the GFN _while holding mmu_lock_.  And then after acquiring
mmu_lock, the vCPU that got the false negative would call make_spte(), which would
detect that making the SPTE writable is disallowed due to the GFN being write-protected.

	if (pte_access & ACC_WRITE_MASK) {
		spte |= PT_WRITABLE_MASK | shadow_mmu_writable_mask;

		/*
		 * Optimization: for pte sync, if spte was writable the hash
		 * lookup is unnecessary (and expensive). Write protection
		 * is responsibility of kvm_mmu_get_page / kvm_mmu_sync_roots.
		 * Same reasoning can be applied to dirty page accounting.
		 */
		if (is_writable_pte(old_spte))
			goto out;

		/*
		 * Unsync shadow pages that are reachable by the new, writable
		 * SPTE.  Write-protect the SPTE if the page can't be unsync'd,
		 * e.g. it's write-tracked (upper-level SPs) or has one or more
		 * shadow pages and unsync'ing pages is not allowed.
		 */
		if (mmu_try_to_unsync_pages(vcpu->kvm, slot, gfn, can_unsync, prefetch)) {
			pgprintk("%s: found shadow page for %llx, marking ro\n",
				 __func__, gfn);
			wrprot = true;
			pte_access &= ~ACC_WRITE_MASK;
			spte &= ~(PT_WRITABLE_MASK | shadow_mmu_writable_mask);
		}
	}



int mmu_try_to_unsync_pages(struct kvm *kvm, const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
			    gfn_t gfn, bool can_unsync, bool prefetch)
{
	struct kvm_mmu_page *sp;
	bool locked = false;

	/*
	 * Force write-protection if the page is being tracked.  Note, the page
	 * track machinery is used to write-protect upper-level shadow pages,
	 * i.e. this guards the role.level == 4K assertion below!
	 */
	if (kvm_slot_page_track_is_active(kvm, slot, gfn, KVM_PAGE_TRACK_WRITE))
		return -EPERM;

	...
}