On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 12:36 +0200, ehrhardt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_guest.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_guest.c > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_guest.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke_guest.c > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ > #include <linux/errno.h> > #include <linux/err.h> > #include <linux/kvm_host.h> > +#include <linux/kvm_para.h> > #include <linux/module.h> > #include <linux/vmalloc.h> > #include <linux/fs.h> > @@ -43,6 +44,7 @@ > { "itlb_v", VCPU_STAT(itlb_virt_miss_exits) }, > { "dtlb_r", VCPU_STAT(dtlb_real_miss_exits) }, > { "dtlb_v", VCPU_STAT(dtlb_virt_miss_exits) }, > + { "dtlb_pv", VCPU_STAT(dtlb_pvmem_miss_exits) }, > { "sysc", VCPU_STAT(syscall_exits) }, > { "isi", VCPU_STAT(isi_exits) }, > { "dsi", VCPU_STAT(dsi_exits) }, > @@ -337,6 +339,16 @@ > unsigned long eaddr = vcpu->arch.fault_dear; > gfn_t gfn; > > + > + if (vcpu->arch.pvmem && kvmppc_is_pvmem(vcpu, eaddr)) { > + kvmppc_mmu_map(vcpu, eaddr, > + vcpu->arch.pvmem_gpaddr >> KVM_PPCPV_MAGIC_PAGE_SHIFT, > + 0, KVM_PPCPV_MAGIC_PAGE_FLAGS); > + vcpu->stat.dtlb_pvmem_miss_exits++; > + r = RESUME_GUEST; > + break; > + } > + > /* Check the guest TLB. */ > gtlbe = kvmppc_44x_dtlb_search(vcpu, eaddr); > if (!gtlbe) { By the way, when this code is running, what's the rate of this new counter? How does it compare to the reduction in instruction emulation? > @@ -488,6 +500,8 @@ > > vcpu->arch.shadow_pid = 1; > > + vcpu->arch.pvmem = NULL; Isn't the whole structure initialized to 0? I don't think this is needed. > /* Eye-catching number so we know if the guest takes an interrupt > * before it's programmed its own IVPR. */ > vcpu->arch.ivpr = 0x55550000; > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ > #include <linux/timer.h> > #include <linux/types.h> > #include <linux/string.h> > +#include <linux/highmem.h> > #include <linux/kvm_host.h> > #include <linux/kvm_para.h> > > @@ -195,7 +196,7 @@ > get_jiffies_64() + nr_jiffies); > } else { > del_timer(&vcpu->arch.dec_timer); > - } > +} > } This looks wrong. > static void kvmppc_emul_rfi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > @@ -207,8 +208,18 @@ > static int kvmppc_do_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > { > int ret = 0; > + struct page *pvmem_page; > > switch (vcpu->arch.gpr[0]) { > + case KVM_HCALL_RESERVE_MAGICPAGE: > + vcpu->arch.pvmem_gvaddr = vcpu->arch.gpr[3]; > + vcpu->arch.pvmem_gpaddr = vcpu->arch.gpr[4]; > + down_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem); > + pvmem_page = gfn_to_page(vcpu->kvm, > + vcpu->arch.pvmem_gpaddr >> KVM_PPCPV_MAGIC_PAGE_SHIFT); > + up_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem); > + vcpu->arch.pvmem = kmap(pvmem_page); > + break; > default: > printk(KERN_ERR "unknown hypercall %d\n", vcpu->arch.gpr[0]); > kvmppc_dump_vcpu(vcpu); Where is vcpu->arch.pvmem unmapped? What happens if the guest makes repeated KVM_HCALL_RESERVE_MAGICPAGE hypercalls? Looks like a good way to leak host memory. Also, if we migrate a guest which has a page registered, the new host won't have vcpu->arch.pvmem set because the guest doesn't re-invoke the KVM_HCALL_RESERVE_MAGICPAGE hypercall. I think we need to put a little more thought into all the corner cases here. -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html