[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] x86/pv: Flush TLB in response to paging structure changes
On 21/10/2020 16:39, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> @@ -4051,27 +4057,28 @@ long do_mmu_update( >>> break; >>> rc = mod_l4_entry(va, l4e_from_intpte(req.val), mfn, >>> cmd == MMU_PT_UPDATE_PRESERVE_AD, v); >>> - if ( !rc && pt_owner->arch.pv.xpti ) >>> + /* Paging structure maybe changed. Flush linear >>> range. */ >>> + if ( !rc ) >>> { >>> - bool local_in_use = false; >>> + bool local_in_use = mfn_eq( >>> + pagetable_get_mfn(curr->arch.guest_table), >>> mfn); >>> >>> - if ( >>> mfn_eq(pagetable_get_mfn(curr->arch.guest_table), >>> - mfn) ) >>> - { >>> - local_in_use = true; >>> - get_cpu_info()->root_pgt_changed = true; >>> - } >>> + flush_flags_all |= FLUSH_TLB; >>> + >>> + if ( local_in_use ) >>> + flush_flags_local |= FLUSH_TLB | >>> FLUSH_ROOT_PGTBL; >> Aiui here (and in the code consuming the flags) you build upon >> flush_flags_local, when not zero, always being a superset of >> flush_flags_all. I think this is a trap to fall into when later >> wanting to change this code, but as per below this won't hold >> anymore anyway, I think. Hence here I think you want to set >> FLUSH_TLB unconditionally, and above for L3 and L2 you want to >> set it in both variables. Or, if I'm wrong below, a comment to >> that effect may help people avoid falling into this trap. >> >> An alternative would be to have >> >> flush_flags_local |= (flush_flags_all & FLUSH_TLB); >> >> before doing the actual flush. Also, what I forgot to say in the previous reply, this is still buggy if hypothetically speaking FLUSH_CACHE had managed to be accumulated in flush_flags_all. You cannot have general accumulation logic, a special case for local, and any catch-all logic like that, because the only correct way to do the catch-all logic will clobber the special case for local. ~Andrew
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |