On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:37:32PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 08/28/2013 04:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> >> +
> >> + rmap_printk("pte_list_add: %p %llx many->many\n", spte, *spte);
> >> + desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(*pte_list & ~1ul);
> >> +
> >> + /* No empty position in the desc. */
> >> + if (desc->sptes[PTE_LIST_EXT - 1]) {
> >> + struct pte_list_desc *new_desc;
> >> + new_desc = mmu_alloc_pte_list_desc(vcpu);
> >> + new_desc->more = desc;
> >> + desc = new_desc;
> >> + *pte_list = (unsigned long)desc | 1;
> >> }
> >> - return count;
> >> +
> >> + free_pos = find_first_free(desc);
> >> + desc->sptes[free_pos] = spte;
> >> + return count_spte_number(desc);
> > Should it be count_spte_number(desc) - 1? The function should returns
> > the number of pte entries before the spte was added.
>
> Yes. We have handled it count_spte_number(), we count the number like this:
>
> return first_free + desc_num * PTE_LIST_EXT;
>
> The first_free is indexed from 0.
>
Suppose when pte_list_add() is called there is one full desc, so the
number that should be returned is PTE_LIST_EXT, correct? But since
before calling count_spte_number() one more desc will be added and
desc->sptes[0] will be set in it the first_free in count_spte_number
will be 1 and PTE_LIST_EXT + 1 will be returned.
> Maybe it is clearer to let count_spte_number() return the real number.
>
> >
> >> }
> >>
> >> static void
> >> -pte_list_desc_remove_entry(unsigned long *pte_list, struct pte_list_desc *desc,
> >> - int i, struct pte_list_desc *prev_desc)
> >> +pte_list_desc_remove_entry(unsigned long *pte_list,
> >> + struct pte_list_desc *desc, int i)
> >> {
> >> - int j;
> >> + struct pte_list_desc *first_desc;
> >> + int last_used;
> >> +
> >> + first_desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(*pte_list & ~1ul);
> >> + last_used = find_last_used(first_desc);
> >>
> >> - for (j = PTE_LIST_EXT - 1; !desc->sptes[j] && j > i; --j)
> >> - ;
> >> - desc->sptes[i] = desc->sptes[j];
> >> - desc->sptes[j] = NULL;
> >> - if (j != 0)
> >> + /*
> >> + * Move the entry from the first desc to this position we want
> >> + * to remove.
> >> + */
> >> + desc->sptes[i] = first_desc->sptes[last_used];
> >> + first_desc->sptes[last_used] = NULL;
> >> +
> > What if desc == first_desc and i < last_used. You still move spte
> > backwards so lockless walk may have already examined entry at i and
> > will miss spte that was moved there from last_used position, no?
>
> Right. I noticed it too and fixed in the v2 which is being tested.
> I fixed it by bottom-up walk desc, like this:
>
> pte_list_walk_lockless():
>
> desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(pte_list_value & ~1ul);
> while (!desc_is_a_nulls(desc)) {
> /*
> * We should do bottom-up walk since we always use the
> * bottom entry to replace the deleted entry if only
> * one desc is used in the rmap when a spte is removed.
> * Otherwise the moved entry will be missed.
> */
I would call it top-down walk since we are walking from big indices to
smaller once.
> for (i = PTE_LIST_EXT - 1; i >= 0; i--)
> fn(desc->sptes[i]);
>
> desc = ACCESS_ONCE(desc->more);
>
> /* It is being initialized. */
> if (unlikely(!desc))
> goto restart;
> }
>
> How about this?
>
Tricky, very very tricky :)
> >
> >> + /* No valid entry in this desc, we can free this desc now. */
> >> + if (!first_desc->sptes[0]) {
> >> + struct pte_list_desc *next_desc = first_desc->more;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Only one entry existing but still use a desc to store it?
> >> + */
> >> + WARN_ON(!next_desc);
> >> +
> >> + mmu_free_pte_list_desc(first_desc);
> >> + first_desc = next_desc;
> >> + *pte_list = (unsigned long)first_desc | 1ul;
> >> return;
> >> - if (!prev_desc && !desc->more)
> >> - *pte_list = (unsigned long)desc->sptes[0];
> >> - else
> >> - if (prev_desc)
> >> - prev_desc->more = desc->more;
> >> - else
> >> - *pte_list = (unsigned long)desc->more | 1;
> >> - mmu_free_pte_list_desc(desc);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + WARN_ON(!first_desc->sptes[0]);
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Only one entry in this desc, move the entry to the head
> >> + * then the desc can be freed.
> >> + */
> >> + if (!first_desc->sptes[1] && !first_desc->more) {
> >> + *pte_list = (unsigned long)first_desc->sptes[0];
> >> + mmu_free_pte_list_desc(first_desc);
> >> + }
> >> }
> >>
> >> static void pte_list_remove(u64 *spte, unsigned long *pte_list)
> >> {
> >> struct pte_list_desc *desc;
> >> - struct pte_list_desc *prev_desc;
> >> int i;
> >>
> >> if (!*pte_list) {
> >> - printk(KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove: %p 0->BUG\n", spte);
> >> - BUG();
> >> - } else if (!(*pte_list & 1)) {
> >> + WARN(1, KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove: %p 0->BUG\n", spte);
> > Why change BUG() to WARN() here and below?
>
> WARN(1, "xxx") can replace two lines in the origin code. And personally,
> i prefer WARN() to BUG() since sometimes BUG() can stop my box and i need to
> get the full log by using kdump.
>
> If you object it, i will change it back in the next version. :)
>
For debugging WARN() is doubtlessly better, but outside of development
you do not want to allow kernel to run after serious MMU corruption is
detected. It may be exploitable further, we do not know, so the safe
choice is to stop the kernel.
--
Gleb.
--
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
