On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 09:01:15AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 17:46:24 +0000, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > - When UFFD is in use, translation faults are reported to userspace as
> > writes when from a RW memslot and reads when from an RO memslot.
>
> Not quite: translation faults are reported as reads if TCR_EL1.HA
> isn't set, and as writes if it is. Ignoring TCR_EL1.HD for a moment,
> this matches exactly the behaviour of the page-table walker, which
> will update the S1 PTs only if this bit is set.
My bad, yes you're right. I conflated the use case here with the
architectural state.
I'm probably being way too pedantic, but I just wanted to make sure we
agree about the ensuing subtlety. More below:
> Or is it what userfaultfd does on its own? That'd be confusing...
>
> >
> > - S1 page table memory is spuriously marked as dirty, as we presume a
> > write immediately follows the translation fault. That isn't entirely
> > senseless, as it would mean both the target page and the S1 PT that
> > maps it are both old. This is nothing new I suppose, just weird.
>
> s/old/young/ ?
>
> I think you're confusing the PT access with the access that caused the
> PT access (I'll have that printed on a t-shirt, thank you very much).
I'd buy it!
> Here, we're not considering the cause of the PT access anymore. If
> TCR_EL1.HA is set, the S1 PT page will be marked as accessed even on a
> read, and only that page.
I think this is where the disconnect might be. TCR_EL1.HA == 1 suggests
a write could possibly follow, but I don't think it requires it. The
page table walker must first load the S1 PTE before writing to it.
>From AArch64.S1Translate() (DDI0487H.a):
(fault, descaddress, walkstate, descriptor) = AArch64.S1Walk(fault, walkparams, va, regime,
ss, acctype, iswrite, ispriv);
[...]
new_desc = descriptor;
if walkparams.ha == '1' && AArch64.FaultAllowsSetAccessFlag(fault) then
// Set descriptor AF bit
new_desc<10> = '1';
[...]
// Either the access flag was clear or AP<2> is set
if new_desc != descriptor then
if regime == Regime_EL10 && EL2Enabled() then
s1aarch64 = TRUE;
s2fs1walk = TRUE;
aligned = TRUE;
iswrite = TRUE;
(s2fault, descupdateaddress) = AArch64.S2Translate(fault, descaddress, s1aarch64,
ss, s2fs1walk, AccType_ATOMICRW,
aligned, iswrite, ispriv);
if s2fault.statuscode != Fault_None then
return (s2fault, AddressDescriptor UNKNOWN);
else
descupdateaddress = descaddress;
(fault, mem_desc) = AArch64.MemSwapTableDesc(fault, descriptor, new_desc,
walkparams.ee, descupdateaddress)
Buried in AArch64.S1Walk() is a stage-2 walk for a read to fetch the
descriptor. The second stage-2 walk for write is conditioned on having
already fetched the stage-1 descriptor and determining the AF needs
to be set.
Relating back to UFFD: if we expect KVM to do exactly what hardware
does, UFFD should see an attempted read when the first walk fails
because of an S2 translation fault. Based on this patch, though, we'd
promote it to a write if TCR_EL1.HA == 1.
This has the additional nuance of marking the S1 PT's IPA as dirty, even
though it might not actually have been written to. Having said that,
the false positive rate should be negligible given that S1 PTs ought to
account for a small amount of guest memory.
Like I said before, I'm probably being unnecessarily pedantic :) It just
seems to me that the view we're giving userspace of S1PTW aborts isn't
exactly architectural and I want to make sure that is explicitly
intentional.
--
Thanks,
Oliver
