Re: [PATCH v10 6/9] KVM: Unmap existing mappings when change the memory attributes

From: Chao Peng
Date: Mon Dec 12 2022 - 02:27:04 EST

Next message: Chao Peng: "Re: [PATCH v10 8/9] KVM: Handle page fault for private memory"
Previous message: Dan Carpenter: "drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c:1699 amdgpu_dm_fini() error: we previously assumed 'adev->dm.dc' could be null (see line 1695)"
In reply to: Fuad Tabba: "Re: [PATCH v10 6/9] KVM: Unmap existing mappings when change the memory attributes"
Next in thread: Chao Peng: "Re: [PATCH v10 6/9] KVM: Unmap existing mappings when change the memory attributes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 08:57:31AM +0000, Fuad Tabba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 11:18 AM Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 05:16:34PM +0000, Fuad Tabba wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 6:19 AM Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Unmap the existing guest mappings when memory attribute is changed
> > > > between shared and private. This is needed because shared pages and
> > > > private pages are from different backends, unmapping existing ones
> > > > gives a chance for page fault handler to re-populate the mappings
> > > > according to the new attribute.
> > > >
> > > > Only architecture has private memory support needs this and the
> > > > supported architecture is expected to rewrite the weak
> > > > kvm_arch_has_private_mem().
> > >
> > > This kind of ties into the discussion of being able to share memory in
> > > place. For pKVM for example, shared and private memory would have the
> > > same backend, and the unmapping wouldn't be needed.
> > >
> > > So I guess that, instead of kvm_arch_has_private_mem(), can the check
> > > be done differently, e.g., with a different function, say
> > > kvm_arch_private_notify_attribute_change() (but maybe with a more
> > > friendly name than what I suggested :) )?
> >
> > Besides controlling the unmapping here, kvm_arch_has_private_mem() is
> > also used to gate the memslot KVM_MEM_PRIVATE flag in patch09. I know
> > unmapping is confirmed unnecessary for pKVM, but how about
> > KVM_MEM_PRIVATE? Will pKVM add its own flag or reuse KVM_MEM_PRIVATE?
> > If the answer is the latter, then yes we should use a different check
> > which only works for confidential usages here.
>
> I think it makes sense for pKVM to use the same flag (KVM_MEM_PRIVATE)
> and not to add another one.

Thanks for the reply.
Chao
>
> Thank you,
> /fuad
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chao
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > /fuad
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, during memory attribute changing and the unmapping time frame,
> > > > page fault handler may happen in the same memory range and can cause
> > > > incorrect page state, invoke kvm_mmu_invalidate_* helpers to let the
> > > > page fault handler retry during this time frame.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 7 +-
> > > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 168 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > > 2 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > > > index 3d69484d2704..3331c0c92838 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > > > @@ -255,7 +255,6 @@ bool kvm_setup_async_pf(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t cr2_or_gpa,
> > > > int kvm_async_pf_wakeup_all(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > -#ifdef KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER
> > > > struct kvm_gfn_range {
> > > > struct kvm_memory_slot *slot;
> > > > gfn_t start;
> > > > @@ -264,6 +263,8 @@ struct kvm_gfn_range {
> > > > bool may_block;
> > > > };
> > > > bool kvm_unmap_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifdef KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER
> > > > bool kvm_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > > > bool kvm_test_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > > > bool kvm_set_spte_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > > > @@ -785,11 +786,12 @@ struct kvm {
> > > >
> > > > #if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER)
> > > > struct mmu_notifier mmu_notifier;
> > > > +#endif
> > > > unsigned long mmu_invalidate_seq;
> > > > long mmu_invalidate_in_progress;
> > > > gfn_t mmu_invalidate_range_start;
> > > > gfn_t mmu_invalidate_range_end;
> > > > -#endif
> > > > +
> > > > struct list_head devices;
> > > > u64 manual_dirty_log_protect;
> > > > struct dentry *debugfs_dentry;
> > > > @@ -1480,6 +1482,7 @@ bool kvm_arch_dy_has_pending_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > > > int kvm_arch_post_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > > void kvm_arch_pre_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > > int kvm_arch_create_vm_debugfs(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > > +bool kvm_arch_has_private_mem(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > >
> > > > #ifndef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_VM_ALLOC
> > > > /*
> > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > > index ad55dfbc75d7..4e1e1e113bf0 100644
> > > > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > > @@ -520,6 +520,62 @@ void kvm_destroy_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > }
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_destroy_vcpus);
> > > >
> > > > +void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * The count increase must become visible at unlock time as no
> > > > + * spte can be established without taking the mmu_lock and
> > > > + * count is also read inside the mmu_lock critical section.
> > > > + */
> > > > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress++;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (likely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress == 1)) {
> > > > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start = INVALID_GPA;
> > > > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end = INVALID_GPA;
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void kvm_mmu_invalidate_range_add(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start, gfn_t end)
> > > > +{
> > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (likely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress == 1)) {
> > > > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start = start;
> > > > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end = end;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Fully tracking multiple concurrent ranges has diminishing
> > > > + * returns. Keep things simple and just find the minimal range
> > > > + * which includes the current and new ranges. As there won't be
> > > > + * enough information to subtract a range after its invalidate
> > > > + * completes, any ranges invalidated concurrently will
> > > > + * accumulate and persist until all outstanding invalidates
> > > > + * complete.
> > > > + */
> > > > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start =
> > > > + min(kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start, start);
> > > > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end =
> > > > + max(kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end, end);
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * This sequence increase will notify the kvm page fault that
> > > > + * the page that is going to be mapped in the spte could have
> > > > + * been freed.
> > > > + */
> > > > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_seq++;
> > > > + smp_wmb();
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * The above sequence increase must be visible before the
> > > > + * below count decrease, which is ensured by the smp_wmb above
> > > > + * in conjunction with the smp_rmb in mmu_invalidate_retry().
> > > > + */
> > > > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress--;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > #if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER)
> > > > static inline struct kvm *mmu_notifier_to_kvm(struct mmu_notifier *mn)
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -714,45 +770,6 @@ static void kvm_mmu_notifier_change_pte(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> > > > kvm_handle_hva_range(mn, address, address + 1, pte, kvm_set_spte_gfn);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > -{
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * The count increase must become visible at unlock time as no
> > > > - * spte can be established without taking the mmu_lock and
> > > > - * count is also read inside the mmu_lock critical section.
> > > > - */
> > > > - kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress++;
> > > > -
> > > > - if (likely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress == 1)) {
> > > > - kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start = INVALID_GPA;
> > > > - kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end = INVALID_GPA;
> > > > - }
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > -void kvm_mmu_invalidate_range_add(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start, gfn_t end)
> > > > -{
> > > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(!kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress);
> > > > -
> > > > - if (likely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress == 1)) {
> > > > - kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start = start;
> > > > - kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end = end;
> > > > - } else {
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * Fully tracking multiple concurrent ranges has diminishing
> > > > - * returns. Keep things simple and just find the minimal range
> > > > - * which includes the current and new ranges. As there won't be
> > > > - * enough information to subtract a range after its invalidate
> > > > - * completes, any ranges invalidated concurrently will
> > > > - * accumulate and persist until all outstanding invalidates
> > > > - * complete.
> > > > - */
> > > > - kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start =
> > > > - min(kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start, start);
> > > > - kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end =
> > > > - max(kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end, end);
> > > > - }
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > static bool kvm_mmu_unmap_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > > > {
> > > > kvm_mmu_invalidate_range_add(kvm, range->start, range->end);
> > > > @@ -806,23 +823,6 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -void kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > -{
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * This sequence increase will notify the kvm page fault that
> > > > - * the page that is going to be mapped in the spte could have
> > > > - * been freed.
> > > > - */
> > > > - kvm->mmu_invalidate_seq++;
> > > > - smp_wmb();
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * The above sequence increase must be visible before the
> > > > - * below count decrease, which is ensured by the smp_wmb above
> > > > - * in conjunction with the smp_rmb in mmu_invalidate_retry().
> > > > - */
> > > > - kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress--;
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > > static void kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> > > > const struct mmu_notifier_range *range)
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -1140,6 +1140,11 @@ int __weak kvm_arch_create_vm_debugfs(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +bool __weak kvm_arch_has_private_mem(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static struct kvm *kvm_create_vm(unsigned long type, const char *fdname)
> > > > {
> > > > struct kvm *kvm = kvm_arch_alloc_vm();
> > > > @@ -2349,15 +2354,47 @@ static u64 kvm_supported_mem_attributes(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static void kvm_unmap_mem_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start, gfn_t end)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct kvm_gfn_range gfn_range;
> > > > + struct kvm_memory_slot *slot;
> > > > + struct kvm_memslots *slots;
> > > > + struct kvm_memslot_iter iter;
> > > > + int i;
> > > > + int r = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + gfn_range.pte = __pte(0);
> > > > + gfn_range.may_block = true;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM; i++) {
> > > > + slots = __kvm_memslots(kvm, i);
> > > > +
> > > > + kvm_for_each_memslot_in_gfn_range(&iter, slots, start, end) {
> > > > + slot = iter.slot;
> > > > + gfn_range.start = max(start, slot->base_gfn);
> > > > + gfn_range.end = min(end, slot->base_gfn + slot->npages);
> > > > + if (gfn_range.start >= gfn_range.end)
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + gfn_range.slot = slot;
> > > > +
> > > > + r |= kvm_unmap_gfn_range(kvm, &gfn_range);
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (r)
> > > > + kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static int kvm_vm_ioctl_set_mem_attributes(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > > struct kvm_memory_attributes *attrs)
> > > > {
> > > > gfn_t start, end;
> > > > unsigned long i;
> > > > void *entry;
> > > > + int idx;
> > > > u64 supported_attrs = kvm_supported_mem_attributes(kvm);
> > > >
> > > > - /* flags is currently not used. */
> > > > + /* 'flags' is currently not used. */
> > > > if (attrs->flags)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > if (attrs->attributes & ~supported_attrs)
> > > > @@ -2372,6 +2409,13 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_set_mem_attributes(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > >
> > > > entry = attrs->attributes ? xa_mk_value(attrs->attributes) : NULL;
> > > >
> > > > + if (kvm_arch_has_private_mem(kvm)) {
> > > > + KVM_MMU_LOCK(kvm);
> > > > + kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(kvm);
> > > > + kvm_mmu_invalidate_range_add(kvm, start, end);
> > > > + KVM_MMU_UNLOCK(kvm);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> > > > for (i = start; i < end; i++)
> > > > if (xa_err(xa_store(&kvm->mem_attr_array, i, entry,
> > > > @@ -2379,6 +2423,16 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_set_mem_attributes(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > > break;
> > > > mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> > > >
> > > > + if (kvm_arch_has_private_mem(kvm)) {
> > > > + idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
> > > > + KVM_MMU_LOCK(kvm);
> > > > + if (i > start)
> > > > + kvm_unmap_mem_range(kvm, start, i);
> > > > + kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(kvm);
> > > > + KVM_MMU_UNLOCK(kvm);
> > > > + srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > attrs->address = i << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > > attrs->size = (end - i) << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> > > >

Next message: Chao Peng: "Re: [PATCH v10 8/9] KVM: Handle page fault for private memory"
Previous message: Dan Carpenter: "drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/amdgpu_dm/amdgpu_dm.c:1699 amdgpu_dm_fini() error: we previously assumed 'adev->dm.dc' could be null (see line 1695)"
In reply to: Fuad Tabba: "Re: [PATCH v10 6/9] KVM: Unmap existing mappings when change the memory attributes"
Next in thread: Chao Peng: "Re: [PATCH v10 6/9] KVM: Unmap existing mappings when change the memory attributes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]