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:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 08:41:14 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ZNRTO0hY8GJBrnOg@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> <ZNOjyf2OHQZYfMEJ@google.com>
 <ZNQfX4JHTJu1Qtl0@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com> <ZNRTO0hY8GJBrnOg@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Message-ID: <ZNUFGljM5oet11xN@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 Thu, Aug 10, 2023, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 07:21:03AM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > 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).
> > I suspect that vCPU0 may still generate a wrong SPTE if vCPU1 wrote 4
> > bytes while vCPU0 wrote 8 bytes, though the chances are very low.
> > 
> This could happen in below sequence:
> vCPU0 updates a PTE to AABBCCDD;
> vCPU1 updates a PTE to EEFFGGHH in two writes.
> (each character stands for a byte)
> 
> vCPU0                  vCPU1   
> write AABBCCDD
>                        write GGHH
>                        detect 4 bytes write and hold on sync
> sync SPTE w/ AABBGGHH
>                        write EEFF
>                        sync SPTE w/ EEFFGGHH
> 
> 
> Do you think it worth below serialization work?

No, because I don't see any KVM bugs with the above sequence.  If the guest doesn't
ensure *all* writes from vCPU0 and vCPU1 are fully serialized, then it is completely
legal for hardware (KVM in this case) to consume AABBGGHH as a PTE.  The only thing
the guest shouldn't see is EEFFCCDD, but I don't see how that can happen.