On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:04:23PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/08/19 16:43, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> + /*
> >> + * Record write protect fault caused by
> >> + * Sub-page Protection, let VMI decide
> >> + * the next step.
> >> + */
> >> + if (spte & PT_SPP_MASK) {
> > Should this be "if (spte & PT_WRITABLE_MASK)" instead? That is, if the
> > page is already writable, the fault must be an SPP fault.
>
> Hmm, no I forgot how SPP works; still, this is *not* correct. For
> example, if SPP marks part of a page as read-write, but KVM wants to
> write-protect the whole page for access or dirty tracking, that should
> not cause an SPP exit.
>
> So I think that when KVM wants to write-protect the whole page
> (wrprot_ad_disabled_spte) it must also clear PT_SPP_MASK; for example it
> could save it in bit 53 (PT64_SECOND_AVAIL_BITS_SHIFT + 1). If the
> saved bit is set, fast_page_fault must then set PT_SPP_MASK instead of
> PT_WRITABLE_MASK.
Sure, will change the processing flow.
> On re-entry this will cause an SPP vmexit;
> fast_page_fault should never trigger an SPP userspace exit on its own,
> all the SPP handling should go through handle_spp.
>
> Paolo
