On Wed, Jul 27, 2022, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 01:23:23AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > @@ -386,16 +385,18 @@ static void handle_changed_spte_dirty_log(struct kvm *kvm, int as_id, gfn_t gfn,
> > static void tdp_mmu_unlink_sp(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
> > bool shared)
> > {
> > + atomic64_dec(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages);
> > +
> > + if (!sp->nx_huge_page_disallowed)
> > + return;
> > +
> Does this read of sp->nx_huge_page_disallowed also need to be protected by
> tdp_mmu_pages_lock in shared path?
No, because only one CPU can call tdp_mmu_unlink_sp() for a shadow page. E.g. in
a shared walk, the SPTE is zapped atomically and only the CPU that "wins" gets to
unlink the s[. The extra lock is needed to prevent list corruption, but the
sp itself is thread safe.
FWIW, even if that guarantee didn't hold, checking the flag outside of tdp_mmu_pages_lock
is safe because false positives are ok. untrack_possible_nx_huge_page() checks that
the shadow page is actually on the list, i.e. it's a nop if a different task unlinks
the page first.
False negatives need to be avoided, but nx_huge_page_disallowed is cleared only
when untrack_possible_nx_huge_page() is guaranteed to be called, i.e. true false
negatives can't occur.
Hmm, but I think there's a missing smp_rmb(), which is needed to ensure
nx_huge_page_disallowed is read after observing the shadow-present SPTE (that's
being unlinked). I'll add that in the next version.
