IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Add yet another spinlock for the TDP MMU and take it when marking indirect
shadow pages unsync. When using the TDP MMU and L1 is running L2(s) with
nested TDP, KVM may encounter shadow pages for the TDP entries managed by
L1 (controlling L2) when handling a TDP MMU page fault. The unsync logic
is not thread safe, e.g. the kvm_mmu_page fields are not atomic, and
misbehaves when a shadow page is marked unsync via a TDP MMU page fault,
which runs with mmu_lock held for read, not write.
Lack of a critical section manifests most visibly as an underflow of
unsync_children in clear_unsync_child_bit() due to unsync_children being
corrupted when multiple CPUs write it without a critical section and
without atomic operations. But underflow is the best case scenario. The
worst case scenario is that unsync_children prematurely hits '0' and
leads to guest memory corruption due to KVM neglecting to properly sync
shadow pages.
Use an entirely new spinlock even though piggybacking tdp_mmu_pages_lock
would functionally be ok. Usurping the lock could degrade performance when
building upper level page tables on different vCPUs, especially since the
unsync flow could hold the lock for a comparatively long time depending on
the number of indirect shadow pages and the depth of the paging tree.
For simplicity, take the lock for all MMUs, even though KVM could fairly
easily know that mmu_lock is held for write. If mmu_lock is held for
write, there cannot be contention for the inner spinlock, and marking
shadow pages unsync across multiple vCPUs will be slow enough that
bouncing the kvm_arch cacheline should be in the noise.
Note, even though L2 could theoretically be given access to its own EPT
entries, a nested MMU must hold mmu_lock for write and thus cannot race
against a TDP MMU page fault. I.e. the additional spinlock only _needs_ to
be taken by the TDP MMU, as opposed to being taken by any MMU for a VM
that is running with the TDP MMU enabled. Holding mmu_lock for read also
prevents the indirect shadow page from being freed. But as above, keep
it simple and always take the lock.
Alternative #1, the TDP MMU could simply pass "false" for can_unsync and
effectively disable unsync behavior for nested TDP. Write protecting leaf
shadow pages is unlikely to noticeably impact traditional L1 VMMs, as such
VMMs typically don't modify TDP entries, but the same may not hold true for
non-standard use cases and/or VMMs that are migrating physical pages (from
L1's perspective).
Alternative #2, the unsync logic could be made thread safe. In theory,
simply converting all relevant kvm_mmu_page fields to atomics and using
atomic bitops for the bitmap would suffice. However, (a) an in-depth audit
would be required, (b) the code churn would be substantial, and (c) legacy
shadow paging would incur additional atomic operations in performance
sensitive paths for no benefit (to legacy shadow paging).
Fixes: a2855afc7e ("KVM: x86/mmu: Allow parallel page faults for the TDP MMU")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Message-Id: <20210812181815.3378104-1-seanjc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
We would like to avoid taking mmu_lock for .invalidate_range_{start,end}()
notifications that are unrelated to KVM. Because mmu_notifier_count
must be modified while holding mmu_lock for write, and must always
be paired across start->end to stay balanced, lock elision must
happen in both or none. Therefore, in preparation for this change,
this patch prevents memslot updates across range_start() and range_end().
Note, technically flag-only memslot updates could be allowed in parallel,
but stalling a memslot update for a relatively short amount of time is
not a scalability issue, and this is all more than complex enough.
A long note on the locking: a previous version of the patch used an rwsem
to block the memslot update while the MMU notifier run, but this resulted
in the following deadlock involving the pseudo-lock tagged as
"mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start".
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.12.0-rc3+ #6 Tainted: G OE
------------------------------------------------------
qemu-system-x86/3069 is trying to acquire lock:
ffffffff9c775ca0 (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end+0x5/0x190
but task is already holding lock:
ffffaff7410a9160 (&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock){.+.+}-{3:3}, at: kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0x36d/0x4f0 [kvm]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
This corresponds to the following MMU notifier logic:
invalidate_range_start
take pseudo lock
down_read() (*)
release pseudo lock
invalidate_range_end
take pseudo lock (**)
up_read()
release pseudo lock
At point (*) we take the mmu_notifiers_slots_lock inside the pseudo lock;
at point (**) we take the pseudo lock inside the mmu_notifiers_slots_lock.
This could cause a deadlock (ignoring for a second that the pseudo lock
is not a lock):
- invalidate_range_start waits on down_read(), because the rwsem is
held by install_new_memslots
- install_new_memslots waits on down_write(), because the rwsem is
held till (another) invalidate_range_end finishes
- invalidate_range_end sits waits on the pseudo lock, held by
invalidate_range_start.
Removing the fairness of the rwsem breaks the cycle (in lockdep terms,
it would change the *shared* rwsem readers into *shared recursive*
readers), so open-code the wait using a readers count and a
spinlock. This also allows handling blockable and non-blockable
critical section in the same way.
Losing the rwsem fairness does theoretically allow MMU notifiers to
block install_new_memslots forever. Note that mm/mmu_notifier.c's own
retry scheme in mmu_interval_read_begin also uses wait/wake_up
and is likewise not fair.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Add a new lock to protect the arch-specific fields of memslots if they
need to be modified in a kvm->srcu read critical section. A future
commit will use this lock to lazily allocate memslot rmaps for x86.
Signed-off-by: Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Message-Id: <20210518173414.450044-5-bgardon@google.com>
[Add Documentation/ hunk. - Paolo]
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Make the location of the HOST_WRITABLE and MMU_WRITABLE configurable for
a given KVM instance. This will allow EPT to use high available bits,
which in turn will free up bit 11 for a constant MMU_PRESENT bit.
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Message-Id: <20210225204749.1512652-19-seanjc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Rename the various A/D status defines to explicitly associated them with
TDP. There is a subtle dependency on the bits in question never being
set when using PAE paging, as those bits are reserved, not available.
I.e. using these bits outside of TDP (technically EPT) would cause
explosions.
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Message-Id: <20210225204749.1512652-13-seanjc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To prepare for handling page faults in parallel, change the TDP MMU
page fault handler to use atomic operations to set SPTEs so that changes
are not lost if multiple threads attempt to modify the same SPTE.
Reviewed-by: Peter Feiner <pfeiner@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Message-Id: <20210202185734.1680553-21-bgardon@google.com>
[Document new locking rules. - Paolo]
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Clarify locking.rst to mention early that we're not enabling fast page
fault for indirect sps. The previous wording is confusing, in that it
seems the proposed solution has been already implemented but it has not.
Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
- Use document title and chapter markups;
- Add markups for literal blocks;
- use :field: for field descriptions;
- Add blank lines and adjust indentation.
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
