Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/29/2010 04:17 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >> >>> If B is writeable-and-dirty, then it's D bit is already set, and we >>> don't need to do anything. >>> >>> If B is writeable-and-clean, then we'll have an spte pointing to a >>> read-only sp, so we'll get a write fault on access and an opportunity to >>> set the D bit. >>> >>> >> Sorry, a typo in my reply, i mean mapping A and B both are >> writable-and-clean, >> while A occurs write-#PF, we should change A's spte map to writable >> sp, if we >> only update the spte in writable-and-clean sp(form readonly to >> writable), the B's >> D bit will miss set. >> > > Right. > > We need to update something to notice this: > > - FNAME(fetch)() to replace the spte > - FNAME(walk_addr)() to invalidate the spte > > I think FNAME(walk_addr) is the right place, we're updating the gpte, so > we should update the spte at the same time, just like a guest write. > But that will be expensive (there could be many sptes, so we have to > call kvm_mmu_pte_write()), so perhaps FNAME(fetch) is easier. > I agree. > We have now > > if (is_shadow_present_pte(*sptep) && !is_large_pte(*sptep)) > continue; > > So we need to add a check, if sp->role.access doesn't match pt_access & > pte_access, we need to get a new sp with the correct access (can only > change read->write). > Umm, we should update the spte at the gw->level, so we need get the child sp, and compare its access at this point, just like this: if (level == gw->level && is_shadow_present_pte(*sptep)) { child_sp = page_header(__pa(*sptep & PT64_BASE_ADDR_MASK)); if (child_sp->access != pt_access & pte_access & (diry ? 1 : ~ACC_WRITE_MASK )) { /* Zap sptep */ ...... } } So, why not use the new spte flag (SPTE_NO_DIRTY in my patch) to mark this spte then we can see this spte whether need updated directly? i think it more simpler ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html