On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 04:16:37PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 01/05/2013 06:44 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> >> index b0a3678..44c6992 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >> @@ -4756,15 +4756,8 @@ static int handle_emulation_failure(struct kvm_vcpu 
> >> *vcpu)
> >>  static bool reexecute_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long 
> >> cr2)
> >>  {
> >>    gpa_t gpa = cr2;
> >> +  gfn_t gfn;
> >>    pfn_t pfn;
> >> -  unsigned int indirect_shadow_pages;
> >> -
> >> -  spin_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> >> -  indirect_shadow_pages = vcpu->kvm->arch.indirect_shadow_pages;
> >> -  spin_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> >> -
> >> -  if (!indirect_shadow_pages)
> >> -          return false;
> > 
> > This renders the previous patch obsolete, pretty much (please fold).
> 
> Will try.
> 
> > 
> >>    if (!vcpu->arch.mmu.direct_map) {
> >>            /*
> >> @@ -4781,13 +4774,7 @@ static bool reexecute_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu 
> >> *vcpu, unsigned long cr2)
> >>                    return true;
> >>    }
> >>
> >> -  /*
> >> -   * if emulation was due to access to shadowed page table
> >> -   * and it failed try to unshadow page and re-enter the
> >> -   * guest to let CPU execute the instruction.
> >> -   */
> >> -  if (kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(vcpu->kvm, gpa_to_gfn(gpa)))
> >> -          return true;
> >> +  gfn = gpa_to_gfn(gpa);
> >>
> >>    /*
> >>     * Do not retry the unhandleable instruction if it faults on the
> >> @@ -4795,13 +4782,38 @@ static bool reexecute_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu 
> >> *vcpu, unsigned long cr2)
> >>     * retry instruction -> write #PF -> emulation fail -> retry
> >>     * instruction -> ...
> >>     */
> >> -  pfn = gfn_to_pfn(vcpu->kvm, gpa_to_gfn(gpa));
> >> -  if (!is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn)) {
> >> -          kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
> >> +  pfn = gfn_to_pfn(vcpu->kvm, gfn);
> >> +
> >> +  /*
> >> +   * If the instruction failed on the error pfn, it can not be fixed,
> >> +   * report the error to userspace.
> >> +   */
> >> +  if (is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn))
> >> +          return false;
> >> +
> >> +  kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
> >> +
> >> +  /* The instructions are well-emulated on direct mmu. */
> >> +  if (vcpu->arch.mmu.direct_map) {
> > 
> > !direct_map?
> 
> No. This logic is, if it is direct mmu, we just unprotect the page shadowed by
> nested mmu, then let guest retry the instruction, no need to detect 
> unhandlable
> instruction.
> 
> > 
> >> +          unsigned int indirect_shadow_pages;
> >> +
> >> +          spin_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> >> +          indirect_shadow_pages = vcpu->kvm->arch.indirect_shadow_pages;
> >> +          spin_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> >> +
> >> +          if (indirect_shadow_pages)
> >> +                  kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn);
> >> +
> >>            return true;
> >>    }
> >>
> >> -  return false;
> >> +  kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn);
> >> +
> >> +  /* If the target gfn is used as page table, the fault can
> >> +   * not be avoided by unprotecting shadow page and it will
> >> +   * be reported to userspace.
> >> +   */
> >> +  return !vcpu->arch.target_gfn_is_pt;
> >>  }
> > 
> > The idea was
> > 
> > How about recording the gfn number for shadow pages that have been
> > shadowed in the current pagefault run? (which is cheap, compared to
> > shadowing these pages).
> > 
> > If failed instruction emulation is write to one of these gfns, then
> > fail.
> 
> If i understood correctly, i do not think it is simpler than the way in this
> patch.
> 
> There is the change to apply the idea:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index c431b33..2163de8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -502,6 +502,8 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
>               u64 msr_val;
>               struct gfn_to_hva_cache data;
>       } pv_eoi;
> +
> +     gfn_t pt_gfns[4];
>  };
> 
>  struct kvm_lpage_info {
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> index 0453fa0..ac4210f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> @@ -523,6 +523,18 @@ FNAME(is_self_change_mapping)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>       return false;
>  }
> 
> +static void FNAME(cache_pt_gfns)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct guest_walker 
> *walker)
> +{
> +     int level;
> +
> +     /* Reset all gfns to -1, then we can detect the levels which is not 
> used in guest. */
> +     for (level = 0; level < 4; level++)
> +             vcpu->arch.pt_gfns[level] = (gfn_t)(-1);
> +
> +     for (level = walker->level; level <= walker->max_level; level++)
> +             vcpu->arch.pt_gfns[level - 1] = walker->table_gfn[level - 1];
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Page fault handler.  There are several causes for a page fault:
>   *   - there is no shadow pte for the guest pte
> @@ -576,6 +588,8 @@ static int FNAME(page_fault)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t 
> addr, u32 error_code,
>               return 0;
>       }
> 
> +      FNAME(cache_pt_gfns)(vcpu, &walker);
> +
>       if (walker.level >= PT_DIRECTORY_LEVEL)
>               force_pt_level = mapping_level_dirty_bitmap(vcpu, walker.gfn)
>                  || FNAME(is_self_change_mapping)(vcpu, &walker, user_fault);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index b0a3678..b86ee24 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -4753,18 +4753,25 @@ static int handle_emulation_failure(struct kvm_vcpu 
> *vcpu)
>       return r;
>  }
> 
> +static bool is_gfn_used_as_pt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn)
> +{
> +     int level;
> +
> +     for (level = 0; level < 4; level++) {
> +             if (vcpu->arch.pt_gfns[level] == (gfn_t)-1)
> +                     continue;
> +             if (gfn == vcpu->arch.pt_gfns[level])
> +                     return true;
> +     }
> +
> +     return false;
> +}
> +
>  static bool reexecute_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr2)
>  {
>       gpa_t gpa = cr2;
> +     gfn_t gfn;
>       pfn_t pfn;
> -     unsigned int indirect_shadow_pages;
> -
> -     spin_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> -     indirect_shadow_pages = vcpu->kvm->arch.indirect_shadow_pages;
> -     spin_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> -
> -     if (!indirect_shadow_pages)
> -             return false;
> 
>       if (!vcpu->arch.mmu.direct_map) {
>               /*
> @@ -4781,13 +4788,7 @@ static bool reexecute_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu 
> *vcpu, unsigned long cr2)
>                       return true;
>       }
> 
> -     /*
> -      * if emulation was due to access to shadowed page table
> -      * and it failed try to unshadow page and re-enter the
> -      * guest to let CPU execute the instruction.
> -      */
> -     if (kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(vcpu->kvm, gpa_to_gfn(gpa)))
> -             return true;
> +     gfn = gpa_to_gfn(gpa);
> 
>       /*
>        * Do not retry the unhandleable instruction if it faults on the
> @@ -4795,13 +4796,38 @@ static bool reexecute_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu 
> *vcpu, unsigned long cr2)
>        * retry instruction -> write #PF -> emulation fail -> retry
>        * instruction -> ...
>        */
> -     pfn = gfn_to_pfn(vcpu->kvm, gpa_to_gfn(gpa));
> -     if (!is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn)) {
> -             kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
> +     pfn = gfn_to_pfn(vcpu->kvm, gfn);
> +
> +     /*
> +      * If the instruction failed on the error pfn, it can not be fixed,
> +      * report the error to userspace.
> +      */
> +     if (is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn))
> +             return false;
> +
> +     kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
> +
> +     /* The instructions are well-emulated on direct mmu. */
> +     if (vcpu->arch.mmu.direct_map) {
> +             unsigned int indirect_shadow_pages;
> +
> +             spin_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> +             indirect_shadow_pages = vcpu->kvm->arch.indirect_shadow_pages;
> +             spin_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> +
> +             if (indirect_shadow_pages)
> +                     kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn);
> +
>               return true;
>       }
> 
> -     return false;
> +     kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn);
> +
> +     /* If the target gfn is used as page table, the fault can
> +      * not be avoided by unprotecting shadow page and it will
> +      * be reported to userspace.
> +      */
> +     return !is_gfn_used_as_pt(vcpu, gfn);
>  }
> 
>  static bool retry_instruction(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt,
> 
> 
> You can see we need to record more things in the vcpu struct (bool vs. gfn_t 
> [4])
> and my patch can fold is_gfn_used_as_pt into a existed function 
> FNAME(is_self_change_mapping).
> 
> Hmm?

Yes, its not needed. But its not clear where target_gfn_is_pt is reset.
Also please use a more descriptive name, such as
"bool write_fault_to_shadow_pgtable".

Please use coding style which is easier for humans to parse, overall.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to