On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:52:54PM +0100, Steven Price wrote: > On 07/04/2021 16:14, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 11:20:18AM +0100, Steven Price wrote: > > > On 31/03/2021 19:43, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > When a slot is added by the VMM, if it asked for MTE in guest (I guess > > > > that's an opt-in by the VMM, haven't checked the other patches), can we > > > > reject it if it's is going to be mapped as Normal Cacheable but it is a > > > > ZONE_DEVICE (i.e. !kvm_is_device_pfn() + one of David's suggestions to > > > > check for ZONE_DEVICE)? This way we don't need to do more expensive > > > > checks in set_pte_at(). > > > > > > The problem is that KVM allows the VMM to change the memory backing a slot > > > while the guest is running. This is obviously useful for the likes of > > > migration, but ultimately means that even if you were to do checks at the > > > time of slot creation, you would need to repeat the checks at set_pte_at() > > > time to ensure a mischievous VMM didn't swap the page for a problematic one. > > > > Does changing the slot require some KVM API call? Can we intercept it > > and do the checks there? > > As David has already replied - KVM uses MMU notifiers, so there's not really > a good place to intercept this before the fault. > > > Maybe a better alternative for the time being is to add a new > > kvm_is_zone_device_pfn() and force KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_DEVICE if it returns > > true _and_ the VMM asked for MTE in guest. We can then only set > > PG_mte_tagged if !device. > > KVM already has a kvm_is_device_pfn(), and yes I agree restricting the MTE > checks to only !kvm_is_device_pfn() makes sense (I have the fix in my branch > locally). Indeed, you can skip it if kvm_is_device_pfn(). In addition, with MTE, I'd also mark a pfn as 'device' in user_mem_abort() if pfn_to_online_page() is NULL as we don't want to map it as Cacheable in Stage 2. It's unlikely that we'll trip over this path but just in case. (can we have a ZONE_DEVICE _online_ pfn or by definition they are considered offline?) > > BTW, after a page is restored from swap, how long do we keep the > > metadata around? I think we can delete it as soon as it was restored and > > PG_mte_tagged was set. Currently it looks like we only do this when the > > actual page was freed or swapoff. I haven't convinced myself that it's > > safe to do this for swapoff unless it guarantees that all the ptes > > sharing a page have been restored. > > My initial thought was to free the metadata immediately. However it turns > out that the following sequence can happen: > > 1. Swap out a page > 2. Swap the page in *read only* > 3. Discard the page > 4. Swap the page in again > > So there's no writing of the swap data again before (3). This works nicely > with a swap device because after writing a page it stays there forever, so > if you know it hasn't been modified it's pointless rewriting it. Sadly it's > not quite so ideal with the MTE tags which are currently kept in RAM. I missed this scenario. So we need to keep it around as long as the corresponding swap storage is still valid. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
