On Fri, 2024-12-13 at 17:07 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Sync the new iteration to the guest prior to restarting the vCPU, otherwise
> it's possible for the vCPU to dirty memory for the next iteration using the
> current iteration's value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/dirty_log_test.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/dirty_log_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/dirty_log_test.c
> index cdae103314fc..41c158cf5444 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/dirty_log_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/dirty_log_test.c
> @@ -859,9 +859,9 @@ static void run_test(enum vm_guest_mode mode, void *arg)
> */
> if (++iteration == p->iterations)
> WRITE_ONCE(host_quit, true);
> -
> - sem_post(&sem_vcpu_cont);
> sync_global_to_guest(vm, iteration);
> +
> + sem_post(&sem_vcpu_cont);
> }
>
> pthread_join(vcpu_thread, NULL);
AFAIK, this patch doesn't 100% gurantee that this won't happen:
The READ_ONCE that guest uses only guarntees no wierd compiler optimizations are used.
The guest can still read the iteration value to a register, get #vmexit, after which the iteration
will be increased and then write the old value.
Is this worth to reorder this to decrease the chances of this happening? I am not sure, as this will
just make this problem rarer and thus harder to debug.
Currently the test just assumes that this can happen and deals with this.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
