Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: delete .change_pte MMU notifier callback

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11.04.24 18:55, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:56 PM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paolo,

I may miss a bunch of details here (as I still remember some change_pte
patches previously on the list..), however not sure whether we considered
enable it?  Asked because I remember Andrea used to have a custom tree
maintaining that part:

https://github.com/aagit/aa/commit/c761078df7a77d13ddfaeebe56a0f4bc128b1968

The patch enables it only for KSM, so it would still require a bunch
of cleanups, for example I also would still use set_pte_at() in all
the places that are not KSM. This would at least fix the issue with
the poor documentation of where to use set_pte_at_notify() vs
set_pte_at().

With regard to the implementation, I like the idea of disabling the
invalidation on the MMU notifier side, but I would rather have
MMU_NOTIFIER_CHANGE_PTE as a separate field in the range instead of
overloading the event field.

Maybe it can't be enabled for some reason that I overlooked in the current
tree, or we just decided to not to?

I have just learnt about the patch, nobody had ever mentioned it even
though it's almost 2 years old... It's a lot of code though and no one

I assume Andrea used it on his tree where he also has a version of "randprotect" (even included in that commit subject) to mitigate a KSM security issue that was reported by some security researchers [1] a while ago. From what I recall, the industry did not end up caring about that security issue that much.

IIUC, with "randprotect" we get a lot more R/O protection even when not de-duplicating a page -- thus the name. Likely, the reporter mentioned in the commit is a researcher that played with Andreas fix for the security issue. But I'm just speculating at this point :)

has ever reported an issue for over 10 years, so I think it's easiest
to just rip the code out.

Yes. Can always be readded in a possibly cleaner fashion (like you note above), when deemed necessary and we are willing to support it.

[1] https://gruss.cc/files/remote_dedup.pdf

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb





[Index of Archives]     [LKML Archive]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Git]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]

  Powered by Linux