On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:47:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 08/02/21 14:49, Yu Zhang wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 12:36:57PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 07/02/21 13:22, Yu Zhang wrote: > > > > In shadow page table, only leaf SPs may be marked as unsync. > > > > And for non-leaf SPs, we use unsync_children to keep the number > > > > of the unsynced children. In kvm_mmu_sync_root(), sp->unsync > > > > shall always be zero for the root SP, , hence no need to check > > > > it. Instead, a warning inside mmu_sync_children() is added, in > > > > case someone incorrectly used it. > > > > > > > > Also, clarify the mmu_need_write_protect(), by moving the warning > > > > into kvm_unsync_page(). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This should really be more of a Co-developed-by, and there are a couple > > > adjustments that could be made in the commit message. I've queued the patch > > > and I'll fix it up later. > > > > Indeed. Thanks for the remind, and I'll pay attention in the future. :) > > Also: > > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c: In function ‘mmu_sync_children’: > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c:2002:17: error: ‘sp’ is used uninitialized in this > function [-Werror=uninitialized] > WARN_ON_ONCE(sp->unsync); Oops. This is wrong. Should be WARN_ON_ONCE(parent->unsync); > > so how was this tested? > I ran access test in kvm-unit-test for previous version, which hasn't this code(also in my local repo "enable_ept" was explicitly set to 0 in order to test the shadow mode). But I did not test this one. I'm truely sorry for the negligence - even trying to compile should make this happen! Should we submit another version? Any suggestions on the test cases? Thanks Yu > Paolo >
