On 9 October 2014 12:43, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:59:21AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 8 October 2014 21:19, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 02:08:34PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> >> On 8 October 2014 13:56, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 01:05:10PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> >> >> There is really no point in faulting in memory regions page by page
>> >> >> if they are not backed by demand paged system RAM but by a linear
>> >> >> passthrough mapping of a host MMIO region.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have omitted the other 5 patches of the series of which this was #6, as
>> >> >> Christoffer had indicated they could be merged separately.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Changes since v1:
>> >> >> - move this logic to kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region() so it can be invoked
>> >> >> when moving memory regions as well as when creating memory regions
>> >> >> - as we are reasoning about memory regions now instead of memslots, all data
>> >> >> is retrieved from the 'mem' argument which points to a struct
>> >> >> kvm_userspace_memory_region
>> >> >> - minor tweaks to the logic flow
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Again, compile tested only, due to lack of test cases.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> >> >> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>> >> >> index fe53c3a30383..1403d9dc1190 100644
>> >> >> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>> >> >> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>> >> >> @@ -1151,7 +1151,57 @@ int kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
>> >> >> struct kvm_userspace_memory_region *mem,
>> >> >> enum kvm_mr_change change)
>> >> >> {
>> >> >> - return 0;
>> >> >> + hva_t hva = mem->userspace_addr;
>> >> >> + hva_t reg_end = hva + mem->memory_size;
>> >> >> + phys_addr_t gpa = mem->guest_phys_addr;
>> >> >> + int ret = 0;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + if (change != KVM_MR_CREATE && change != KVM_MR_MOVE)
>> >> >> + return 0;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + /*
>> >> >> + * A memory region could potentially cover multiple VMAs, so iterate
>> >> >> + * over all of them to find out if we can map any of them right now.
>> >> >> + *
>> >> >> + * +--------------------------------------------+
>> >> >> + * +---+---------+-------------------+--------------+----+
>> >> >> + * | : VMA 1 | VMA 2 | VMA 3 : |
>> >> >> + * +---+---------+-------------------+--------------+----+
>> >> >> + * | memory region |
>> >> >> + * +--------------------------------------------+
>> >> >> + */
>> >> >> + do {
>> >> >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = find_vma(current->mm, hva);
>> >> >> + hva_t vm_end;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + if (!vma || vma->vm_start > hva) {
>> >> >> + ret = -EFAULT;
>> >> >> + break;
>> >> >> + }
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + vm_end = min(reg_end, vma->vm_end);
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP) {
>> >> >> + phys_addr_t pa = (vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT) + hva -
>> >> >> + vma->vm_start;
>> >> >> + bool writable = (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) &&
>> >> >> + !(mem->flags & KVM_MEM_READONLY);
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + ret = kvm_phys_addr_ioremap(kvm, gpa, pa, vm_end - hva,
>> >> >> + writable);
>> >> >> + if (ret)
>> >> >> + break;
>> >> >> + }
>> >> >> + gpa += vm_end - hva;
>> >> >> + hva = vm_end;
>> >> >> + } while (hva < reg_end);
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + if (ret) {
>> >> >> + spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>> >> >> + unmap_stage2_range(kvm, mem->guest_phys_addr, mem->memory_size);
>> >> >> + spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>> >> >> + }
>> >> >> + return ret;
>> >> >> }
>> >> >>
>> >> >> void kvm_arch_free_memslot(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *free,
>> >> >
>> >> > If userspace moves the memory region in the guest IPA, then when are we
>> >> > unmapping the old IPA region? Should we not do this before we create
>> >> > the new mappings (which may potentially overlap with the old one)?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You are right: I will move this logic to
>> >> kvm_arch_commit_memory_region() instead so we can execute it after the
>> >> unmap() has occurred.
>> >>
>> > As we discussed over IRC, that won't work because you don't have an
>> > error path.
>> >
>> > Can you instead, prior to the loop, check if (change == KVM_MR_MOVE),
>> > and in that case lookup the old memslot based on mem->slot, unmap
>> > whatever is in there, and then proceed with what you had before?
>> >
>> > Slightly quirky but it should work afaict.
>> >
>>
>> What about moving the unmap to kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot()? This
>> looks like an appropriate place to do the unmap, as it is conveniently
>> invoked only for KVM_MR_DELETE and KVM_MR_MOVE, and right before
>> kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region()
>>
> That sounds like a nicer solution and looks like what x86 and power do
> to, let's do that.
>
> Will you respin?
>
Yes. And in fact, it appears that holes between the VMAs are allowed,
so I will also update the logic to accept that.
--
Ard.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
