[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] Fix p2m_set_suppress_ve
>>> On 03.04.19 at 17:17, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/3/19 5:58 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 03.04.19 at 16:29, <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c >>> @@ -3011,8 +3011,16 @@ int p2m_set_suppress_ve(struct domain *d, gfn_t gfn, >>> bool suppress_ve, >>> mfn = p2m->get_entry(p2m, gfn, &t, &a, 0, NULL, NULL); >>> if ( !mfn_valid(mfn) ) >>> { >>> - rc = -ESRCH; >>> - goto out; >>> + unsigned int page_order; >>> + >>> + mfn = __get_gfn_type_access(host_p2m, gfn_x(gfn), &t, &a, >>> + P2M_ALLOC | P2M_UNSHARE, &page_order, >>> 0); >> >> I'm not entirely certain about P2M_ALLOC, but I'm pretty sure that >> at least P2M_UNSHARE is too heavy: Why would you want to force >> un-sharing of a page when all you want to alter is #VE behavior? > > That logic was taken from p2m_set_altp2m_mem_access(), we thought the > two cases are very similar. I see. > 269 mfn = ap2m->get_entry(ap2m, gfn, &t, &old_a, 0, NULL, NULL); > 270 > 271 /* Check host p2m if no valid entry in alternate */ This comment was not cloned. > 272 if ( !mfn_valid(mfn) ) > 273 { > 274 > 275 mfn = __get_gfn_type_access(hp2m, gfn_l, &t, &old_a, > 276 P2M_ALLOC | P2M_UNSHARE, &page_order, > 0); > 277 > 278 rc = -ESRCH; > 279 if ( !mfn_valid(mfn) || t != p2m_ram_rw ) > 280 return rc; > 281 > 282 /* If this is a superpage, copy that first */ > 283 if ( page_order != PAGE_ORDER_4K ) > 284 { > 285 unsigned long mask = ~((1UL << page_order) - 1); > 286 gfn_t gfn2 = _gfn(gfn_l & mask); > 287 mfn_t mfn2 = _mfn(mfn_x(mfn) & mask); > 288 > 289 rc = ap2m->set_entry(ap2m, gfn2, mfn2, page_order, t, old_a, > 1); > 290 if ( rc ) > 291 return rc; > 292 } > 293 } > 294 > 295 /* > 296 * Inherit the old suppress #VE bit value if it is already set, or > set it > 297 * to 1 otherwise > 298 */ > 299 return ap2m->set_entry(ap2m, gfn, mfn, PAGE_ORDER_4K, t, a, -1); > 300 } > > I wonder if we should put the whole logic in the "if ( !mfn_valid(mfn) )" > body in its own function and reuse that for both functions - although > it doesn't look like the extra superpage logic matters for setting the > suppress #VE bit alone (since even the code above only sets it with > PAGE_ORDER_4K). Indeed, this latter aspect doesn't make it look very attractive to introduce a common helper. Otoh I wonder what other functions might be affected. >> Additionally, when you add such a lookup as error handling attempt, >> I think it is important to leave a code comment. But I wonder >> whether this shouldn't be done before the call to ->get_entry(), or >> whether in fact there's a bug here in how get_entry() behaves in >> this case. > > Changes to the hostp2m (also known as altp2m view 0) propagate to all > existing altp2ms, but they do so in a lazy manner, and also that won't > happen for altp2ms created after a while. So altp2ms will not > necessarily know about a page that the hostp2m knows about, which should > not stop us from setting mem access restrictions or the value of the SVE > bit. But even if the propagation is lazy, a "get" should then return the propagated value, shouldn't it? Or else callers (like is the case here) can be mislead. I do recognize that there may be callers who intentionally _don't_ want the propagated value, but I'd expect this to be the exception, not the rule. I wonder therefore whether there shouldn't be a wrapper around ->get_entry() to take care of this for callers which want the propagated value. Calling the bare hook would remain as is. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |