On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 3:42 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 1:47 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > My preference would be to leave .smm in x86's page role. IMO, defining multiple
> > > address spaces to support SMM emulation was a mistake that should be contained to
> > > SMM, i.e. should never be used for any other feature. And with CONFIG_KVM_SMM,
> > > even x86 can opt out.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I think the name ASID in kvm/x86 should be used for vmcb's ASID,
> > vmcs's VPID, and PCID. Using the name ASID for other purposes
> > would only result in unnecessary confusion.
>
> I agree in principle, but at this point fixing the problem would require a lot of
> churn since "as_id" is pervasive throughout the memslots code.
>
> It should be possible though, as I don't think anything in KVM's uAPI explicitly
> takes an as_id, i.e. it's KVM-internal terminology for the most part.
>
> > There is a bug for shadow paging when it uses two separate sets
> > of memslots which are using two sets of rmap and page-tracking.
> >
> > When SMM world is writing to a non-SMM page which happens to be
> > a guest pagetable in the non-SMM world, the write operation will
> > go smoothly without specially handled and the shadow page for the guest
> > pagetable is neither unshadowed nor marked unsync. The shadow paging
> > code is unaware that the shadow page has deviated from the guest
> > pagetable.
>
> Won't the unsync code work as intended? for_each_gfn_valid_sp_with_gptes()
> doesn't consume the slot and I don't see any explicit filtering on role.smm,
> i.e. should unsync all SPTEs for the gfn.
>
> Addressing the page-track case is a bit gross, but doesn't appear to be too
> difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other SMM => non-SMM bugs lurking
> though.
>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_page_track.h | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 7 +++---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h | 3 ++-
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++--------
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Could you send the patch in a new thread, please?
I will add my reviewed-by then.
It still lacks the parts that do write protection for sp->gfn.
kvm_vcpu_write_protect_gfn() has to handle the two worlds.
account_shadowed() and kvm_slot_page_track_add_page() have also
to handle the two worlds.
And I don't think there is any page-table in SMM-world, so
kvm_slot_page_track_is_active() can just skip the SMM-world
and check the non-SMM world only.
Thanks
Lai
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_page_track.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_page_track.h
> index eb186bc57f6a..fdd9de31e160 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_page_track.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_page_track.h
> @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ void kvm_slot_page_track_add_page(struct kvm *kvm,
> void kvm_slot_page_track_remove_page(struct kvm *kvm,
> struct kvm_memory_slot *slot, gfn_t gfn,
> enum kvm_page_track_mode mode);
> -bool kvm_slot_page_track_is_active(struct kvm *kvm,
> +bool kvm_slot_page_track_is_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> gfn_t gfn, enum kvm_page_track_mode mode);
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index 254bc46234e0..1c2200042133 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -2715,9 +2715,10 @@ static void kvm_unsync_page(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
> * were marked unsync (or if there is no shadow page), -EPERM if the SPTE must
> * be write-protected.
> */
> -int mmu_try_to_unsync_pages(struct kvm *kvm, const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> +int mmu_try_to_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> gfn_t gfn, bool can_unsync, bool prefetch)
> {
> + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> struct kvm_mmu_page *sp;
> bool locked = false;
>
> @@ -2726,7 +2727,7 @@ int mmu_try_to_unsync_pages(struct kvm *kvm, const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> * 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))
> + if (kvm_slot_page_track_is_active(vcpu, slot, gfn, KVM_PAGE_TRACK_WRITE))
> return -EPERM;
>
> /*
> @@ -4127,7 +4128,7 @@ static bool page_fault_handle_page_track(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> * guest is writing the page which is write tracked which can
> * not be fixed by page fault handler.
> */
> - if (kvm_slot_page_track_is_active(vcpu->kvm, fault->slot, fault->gfn, KVM_PAGE_TRACK_WRITE))
> + if (kvm_slot_page_track_is_active(vcpu, fault->slot, fault->gfn, KVM_PAGE_TRACK_WRITE))
> return true;
>
> return false;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
> index ac00bfbf32f6..38040ab27986 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
> @@ -156,7 +156,8 @@ static inline bool kvm_mmu_page_ad_need_write_protect(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
> return kvm_x86_ops.cpu_dirty_log_size && sp->role.guest_mode;
> }
>
> -int mmu_try_to_unsync_pages(struct kvm *kvm, const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> +int mmu_try_to_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> + const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> gfn_t gfn, bool can_unsync, bool prefetch);
>
> void kvm_mmu_gfn_disallow_lpage(const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot, gfn_t gfn);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c
> index 2e09d1b6249f..0e9bc837257e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>
> #include "mmu.h"
> #include "mmu_internal.h"
> +#include "smm.h"
>
> bool kvm_page_track_write_tracking_enabled(struct kvm *kvm)
> {
> @@ -171,27 +172,40 @@ void kvm_slot_page_track_remove_page(struct kvm *kvm,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_slot_page_track_remove_page);
>
> +static bool __kvm_slot_page_track_is_active(const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> + gfn_t gfn, enum kvm_page_track_mode mode)
> +{
> + int index;
> +
> + if (!slot)
> + return false;
> +
> + index = gfn_to_index(gfn, slot->base_gfn, PG_LEVEL_4K);
> + return !!READ_ONCE(slot->arch.gfn_track[mode][index]);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * check if the corresponding access on the specified guest page is tracked.
> */
> -bool kvm_slot_page_track_is_active(struct kvm *kvm,
> +bool kvm_slot_page_track_is_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> gfn_t gfn, enum kvm_page_track_mode mode)
> {
> - int index;
> -
> if (WARN_ON(!page_track_mode_is_valid(mode)))
> return false;
>
> - if (!slot)
> - return false;
> -
> if (mode == KVM_PAGE_TRACK_WRITE &&
> - !kvm_page_track_write_tracking_enabled(kvm))
> + !kvm_page_track_write_tracking_enabled(vcpu->kvm))
> return false;
>
> - index = gfn_to_index(gfn, slot->base_gfn, PG_LEVEL_4K);
> - return !!READ_ONCE(slot->arch.gfn_track[mode][index]);
> + if (__kvm_slot_page_track_is_active(slot, gfn, mode))
> + return true;
> +
> + if (!is_smm(vcpu))
> + return false;
> +
> + return __kvm_slot_page_track_is_active(gfn_to_memslot(vcpu->kvm, gfn),
> + gfn, mode);
> }
>
> void kvm_page_track_cleanup(struct kvm *kvm)
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
> index c0fd7e049b4e..89ddd113c1b9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ bool make_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
> * 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)) {
> + if (mmu_try_to_unsync_pages(vcpu, slot, gfn, can_unsync, prefetch)) {
> pgprintk("%s: found shadow page for %llx, marking ro\n",
> __func__, gfn);
> wrprot = true;
>
> base-commit: e0ef1f14e97ff65adf6e2157952dbbd1e482065c
> --
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
