Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 9 Aug 2023 07:33:45 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ZNLlseYag5DniUg3@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20221223005739.1295925-1-seanjc@google.com> <20221223005739.1295925-20-seanjc@google.com>
 <5581418b-2e1c-6011-f0a4-580df7e00b44@gmail.com> <ZNEni2XZuwiPgqaC@google.com>
 <ZNLlseYag5DniUg3@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Message-ID: <ZNOjyf2OHQZYfMEJ@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/27] KVM: x86/mmu: Use page-track notifiers iff there
 are external users
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
Cc:     Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 09, 2023, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:19:07AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023, Like Xu wrote:
> > > On 23/12/2022 8:57 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > +static inline void kvm_page_track_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t gpa,
> > > > +					const u8 *new, int bytes)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	__kvm_page_track_write(vcpu, gpa, new, bytes);
> > > > +
> > > > +	kvm_mmu_track_write(vcpu, gpa, new, bytes);
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > The kvm_mmu_track_write() is only used for x86, where the incoming parameter
> > > "u8 *new" has not been required since 0e0fee5c539b ("kvm: mmu: Fix race in
> > > emulated page table writes"), please help confirm if it's still needed ? Thanks.
> > > A minor clean up is proposed.
> > 
> > Hmm, unless I'm misreading things, KVMGT ultimately doesn't consume @new either.
> > So I think we can remove @new from kvm_page_track_write() entirely.
> Sorry for the late reply.
> Yes, KVMGT does not consume @new and it reads the guest PTE again in the
> page track write handler.
> 
> But I have a couple of questions related to the memtioned commit as
> below:
> 
> (1) If "re-reading the current value of the guest PTE after the MMU lock has
> been acquired", then should KVMGT also acquire the MMU lock too?

No.  If applicable, KVMGT should read the new/current value after acquiring
whatever lock protects the generation (or update) of the shadow entries.  I
suspect KVMGT already does this, but I don't have time to confirm that at this
exact memory.

The race that was fixed in KVM was:

  vCPU0         vCPU1   
  write X
                 write Y
                 sync SPTE w/ Y
  sync SPTE w/ X

Reading the value after acquiring mmu_lock ensures that both vCPUs will see whatever
value "loses" the race, i.e. whatever written value is processed second ('Y' in the
above sequence).

> If so, could we move the MMU lock and unlock into kvm_page_track_write()
> as it's common.
> 
> (2) Even if KVMGT consumes @new,
> will kvm_page_track_write() be called for once or twice if there are two
> concurent emulated write?

Twice, kvm_page_track_write() is wired up directly to the emulation of the write,
i.e. there is no batching.