Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/mm: Suppresses vm_events caused by page-walks

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 18.09.18 at 20:20, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 18/09/18 11:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 18.09.18 at 11:47, <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 08:17 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12.09.18 at 11:47, <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> The original version of the patch emulated the current instruction
>>>>> (which, as a side-effect, emulated the page-walk as well), however
>>>>> we
>>>>> need finer-grained control. We want to emulate the page-walk, but
>>>>> still
>>>>> get an EPT violation event if the current instruction would trigger
>>>>> one.
>>>>> This patch performs just the page-walk emulation.
>>>> Rather than making this basically a revision log, could you please
>>>> focus
>>>> on what you actually want to achieve?
>>>>
>>>> As to the title: "Suppress ..." please.
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -149,6 +151,10 @@ guest_walk_tables(struct vcpu *v, struct
>>>>> p2m_domain *p2m,
>>>>>      ar_and &= gflags;
>>>>>      ar_or  |= gflags;
>>>>>  
>>>>> +    if ( set_ad && set_ad_bits(&l4p[guest_l4_table_offset(va)].l4,
>>>>> +                               &gw->l4e.l4, false) )
>>>>> +        accessed = true;
>>>> It is in particular this seemingly odd (and redundant with what's
>>>> done
>>>> later in the function) which needs thorough explanation.
>>> On this patch I've followed Andrew Cooper's suggestion on how to set
>>> A/D Bits:
>>>
>>> "While walking down the levels, set any missing A bits and remember if we
>>> set any.  If we set A bits, consider ourselves complete and exit back to
>>> the guest.  If no A bits were set, and the access was a write (which we
>>> know from the EPT violation information), then set the leaf D bit."
>>>
>>> If I misunderstood the comment please clarify.
>> It doesn't look to me as if you misunderstood anything, but only Andrew
>> can say for sure. However, none of this was in the description of your
>> patch (neither as part of the description, nor as code comment), and I
>> think you'd even have to greatly extend on this in order to explain to
>> everyone why the resulting behavior is still architecturally correct. In no
>> case should you assume anyone reading your patch (now or in the
>> future) has participated in the earlier discussion.
> 
> The problem we have is that, while we know the EPT Violation was for a
> write of an A or D bit to a write-protected guest pagetable, we don't
> know if it was the A or the D bit which was attempting to be set.
> 
> Furthermore (without emulating the instruction, which is what we are
> trying to avoid), we can't reconstruct the access.
> 
> Access bits are only written if they were missing before, but may be set
> speculatively.  Dirty bits are only set when a write is retired.  From a
> practical point of view, the pipeline sets A and D bits as separate actions.
> 
> Following this logic (and assuming for now a single vcpu), if we get a
> GPT EPT Violation, and there are missing access bits on the walk, then
> the fault is definitely from setting an access bit.

Definitely? Is there anything guaranteeing architecturally that an access
bit related EPT violation would be delivered earlier than any other one
on that same or a lower page table level? It doesn't matter much for
the implementation (because of it being permissible to set the A bits
speculatively, as you also say further down, and any other violation
then re-occurring after exiting back to the guest once the A bits are
all set), but since we're discussing here what exactly the patch
description should contain, I think I'd prefer this to be fully correct there.

Or wait - I think I can agree with "definitely", provided you further
restrict the context: "..., if we get a GPT EPT Write Violation ...". But
from what I can tell the patch'es change to p2m_mem_access_check()
doesn't apply (or pass on) any of these qualifications at all.

>  Set all access bits
> and call it done.  If we get a GPT EPT Violation and all access bits
> were set, then it was definitely from setting the Dirty bit.
> 
> For multi-vcpu scenarios, things get racy.  Setting all the Access bits
> is safe because its a speculative action, but a speculatively load on
> one vcpu can race with a write (to a read-only mapping) on the other
> vcpu, and would trick this algorithm into setting the dirty bit when the
> write would have faulted (and not set the dirty bit).
> 
> Do we have numbers on how many the GPT EPT Violations are for (only)
> access sets, and how many are for dirty tsets?  Would the first half of
> the algorithm (which is definitely not racy) still be a net perf win?

Does Windows make use of A bits at all? I'd expect most OSes to
simply set them right away, and actively use of the D bits.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel