Date:   Mon, 22 Nov 2021 18:49:38 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        butt3rflyh4ck <butterflyhuangxx@gmail.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: KVM: Warn if mark_page_dirty() is called without an active vCPU
Message-ID: <YZvmQjgdI/gQj6T6@google.com>
References: <CAFcO6XOmoS7EacN_n6v4Txk7xL7iqRa2gABg3F7E3Naf5uG94g@mail.gmail.com>
 <9eb83cdd-9314-0d1f-0d4b-0cf4432e1e84@redhat.com>
 <e8f40b8765f2feefb653d8a67e487818f66581aa.camel@infradead.org>
 <YZvNB0ByFmdEkUVX@google.com>
 <ee872549432eaf62c0c5a722b94ac4390ef3df83.camel@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ee872549432eaf62c0c5a722b94ac4390ef3df83.camel@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 17:01 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > index 6c5083f2eb50..72c6453bcef4 100644
> > > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > @@ -3020,12 +3020,17 @@ void mark_page_dirty_in_slot(struct kvm *kvm,
> > >  			     struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
> > >  		 	     gfn_t gfn)
> > >  {
> > > +	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = kvm_get_running_vcpu();
> > > +
> > > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!vcpu) || WARN_ON_ONCE(vcpu->kvm != kvm))
> > 
> > Maybe use KVM_BUG_ON?  And two separate WARNs are probably overkill.
> > 
> > 	if (KVM_BUG_ON(!vcpu || vcpu->kvm != kvm, kvm))
> > 
> > 
> > I'd also prefer to not retrieve the vCPU in the dirty_bitmap path, at least not
> > until it's necessary (for the proposed dirty quota throttling), though that's not
> > a strong preference.
> 
> I don't think that would achieve my objective. This was my reaction to
> learning that I was never supposed to have called kvm_write_guest()
> when I didn't have an active vCPU context?. I wanted there to have been
> a *warning* about that, right there and then when I first did it
> instead of waiting for syzkaller to find it.

Fair enough.  And probably a moot point since Paolo hasn't vehemently objected
to the dirty quota idea.