Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 21:17:45 +0800
From:   Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sean.j.christopherson@intel.com,
        mst@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com, jmattson@google.com,
        yu.c.zhang@intel.com, alazar@bitdefender.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v4 7/9] KVM: VMX: Handle SPP induced vmexit and
 page fault
Message-ID: <20190822131745.GA20168@local-michael-cet-test>
References: <20190814070403.6588-1-weijiang.yang@intel.com>
 <20190814070403.6588-8-weijiang.yang@intel.com>
 <5f6ba406-17c4-a552-2352-2ff50569aac0@redhat.com>
 <fb6cd8b4-eee9-6e58-4047-550811bffd58@redhat.com>
 <20190820134435.GE4828@local-michael-cet-test.sh.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190820134435.GE4828@local-michael-cet-test.sh.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 09:44:35PM +0800, Yang Weijiang wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:04:23PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 19/08/19 16:43, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >> +			/*
> > >> +			 * Record write protect fault caused by
> > >> +			 * Sub-page Protection, let VMI decide
> > >> +			 * the next step.
> > >> +			 */
> > >> +			if (spte & PT_SPP_MASK) {
> > > Should this be "if (spte & PT_WRITABLE_MASK)" instead?  That is, if the
> > > page is already writable, the fault must be an SPP fault.
> > 
> > Hmm, no I forgot how SPP works; still, this is *not* correct.  For
> > example, if SPP marks part of a page as read-write, but KVM wants to
> > write-protect the whole page for access or dirty tracking, that should
> > not cause an SPP exit.
> > 
> > So I think that when KVM wants to write-protect the whole page
> > (wrprot_ad_disabled_spte) it must also clear PT_SPP_MASK; for example it
> > could save it in bit 53 (PT64_SECOND_AVAIL_BITS_SHIFT + 1).  If the
> > saved bit is set, fast_page_fault must then set PT_SPP_MASK instead of
> > PT_WRITABLE_MASK.
> Sure, will change the processing flow.
> 
> > On re-entry this will cause an SPP vmexit;
> > fast_page_fault should never trigger an SPP userspace exit on its own,
> > all the SPP handling should go through handle_spp.
 Hi, Paolo,
 According to the latest SDM(28.2.4), handle_spp only handles SPPT miss and SPPT
 misconfig(exit_reason==66), subpage write access violation causes EPT violation,
 so have to deal with the two cases into handlers.
> > Paolo