Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: MMU: fix permission_fault()
To: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
References: <1458911978-19430-1-git-send-email-guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
 <56F54983.4010508@redhat.com> <56FABECE.40601@linux.intel.com>
Cc: gleb@kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <56FAE0F3.9090809@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 22:09:23 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56FABECE.40601@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 909
Lines: 21


On 29/03/2016 19:43, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Based on the SDM:
> PK flag (bit 5).
> This flag is 1 if (1) IA32_EFER.LMA = CR4.PKE = 1; (2) the access
> causing the page-fault exception was a data access; (3) the linear
> address was a user-mode address with protection key i; and (5) the PKRU
> register (see Section 4.6.2) is such that either (a) ADi = 1; or (b) the
> following all hold: (i) WDi = 1; (ii) the access is a write access; and
> (iii) either CR0.WP = 1 or the access causing the page-fault exception
> was a user-mode access.
> 
> So I think PKEY check and ordinary check are independent, i.e, PFEC.PKEY
> may be set even if the on permission on the page table is not adequate.

x86/access.flat is currently using the "other" definition, i.e., PFEC.PK
is only set if W=1 or CR0.WP=0 && PFEC.U=0 or PFEC.W=0.  Can you use it
(with ept=1 of course) to check what the processor is doing?

Paolo