On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 03:20:52 +0100,
Keqian Zhu <zhukeqi...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 2021/4/14 17:05, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > + Santosh, who found some interesting bugs in that area before.
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:51:09 +0100,
> > Keqian Zhu <zhukeqi...@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The MMIO region of a device maybe huge (GB level), try to use
> >> block mapping in stage2 to speedup both map and unmap.
> >>
> >> Compared to normal memory mapping, we should consider two more
> >> points when try block mapping for MMIO region:
> >>
> >> 1. For normal memory mapping, the PA(host physical address) and
> >> HVA have same alignment within PUD_SIZE or PMD_SIZE when we use
> >> the HVA to request hugepage, so we don't need to consider PA
> >> alignment when verifing block mapping. But for device memory
> >> mapping, the PA and HVA may have different alignment.
> >>
> >> 2. For normal memory mapping, we are sure hugepage size properly
> >> fit into vma, so we don't check whether the mapping size exceeds
> >> the boundary of vma. But for device memory mapping, we should pay
> >> attention to this.
> >>
> >> This adds device_rough_page_shift() to check these two points when
> >> selecting block mapping size.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Keqian Zhu <zhukeqi...@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> >> index c59af5ca01b0..1a6d96169d60 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> >> @@ -624,6 +624,31 @@ static void kvm_send_hwpoison_signal(unsigned long
> >> address, short lsb)
> >> send_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, (void __user *)address, lsb, current);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * Find a max mapping size that properly insides the vma. And hva and pa
> >> must
> >> + * have the same alignment to this mapping size. It's rough as there are
> >> still
> >> + * other restrictions, will be checked by
> >> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping().
> >> + */
> >> +static short device_rough_page_shift(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> + unsigned long hva)
> >
> > My earlier question still stands. Under which circumstances would this
> > function return something that is *not* the final mapping size? I
> > really don't see a reason why this would not return the final mapping
> > size.
>
> IIUC, all the restrictions are about alignment and area boundary.
>
> That's to say, HVA, IPA and PA must have same alignment within the
> mapping size. And the areas are memslot and vma, which means the
> mapping size must properly fit into the memslot and vma.
>
> In this function, we just checked the alignment of HVA and PA, and
> the boundary of vma. So we still need to check the alignment of HVA
> and IPA, and the boundary of memslot. These will be checked by
> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping().
But that's no different from what we do with normal memory, is it? So
it really feels like we should have *one* function that deals with
establishing the basic mapping size from the VMA (see below for what I
have in mind).
>
> >
> >> +{
> >> + phys_addr_t pa = (vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT) + (hva - vma->vm_start);
> >> +
> >> +#ifndef __PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED
> >> + if ((hva & (PUD_SIZE - 1)) == (pa & (PUD_SIZE - 1)) &&
> >> + ALIGN_DOWN(hva, PUD_SIZE) >= vma->vm_start &&
> >> + ALIGN(hva, PUD_SIZE) <= vma->vm_end)
> >> + return PUD_SHIFT;
> >> +#endif
> >> +
> >> + if ((hva & (PMD_SIZE - 1)) == (pa & (PMD_SIZE - 1)) &&
> >> + ALIGN_DOWN(hva, PMD_SIZE) >= vma->vm_start &&
> >> + ALIGN(hva, PMD_SIZE) <= vma->vm_end)
> >> + return PMD_SHIFT;
> >> +
> >> + return PAGE_SHIFT;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static bool fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot
> >> *memslot,
> >> unsigned long hva,
> >> unsigned long map_size)
> >> @@ -769,7 +794,10 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> >> return -EFAULT;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - /* Let's check if we will get back a huge page backed by hugetlbfs */
> >> + /*
> >> + * Let's check if we will get back a huge page backed by hugetlbfs, or
> >> + * get block mapping for device MMIO region.
> >> + */
> >> mmap_read_lock(current->mm);
> >> vma = find_vma_intersection(current->mm, hva, hva + 1);
> >> if (unlikely(!vma)) {
> >> @@ -780,11 +808,12 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> >>
> >> if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
> >> vma_shift = huge_page_shift(hstate_vma(vma));
> >> + else if (vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP)
> >> + vma_shift = device_rough_page_shift(vma, hva);
> >
> > What prevents a VMA from having both VM_HUGETLB and VM_PFNMAP? This is
> > pretty unlikely, but I'd like to see this case catered for.
> >
> I'm not sure whether VM_HUGETLB and VM_PFNMAP are compatible, and I
> failed to find a case.
>
> VM_PFNMAP is used for page-ranges managed without "struct page",
> just pure PFN. IIUC, VM_HUGETLB is used for hugetlbfs, which always
> has "struct page". So I think they should not be compatible,
> otherwise it's a bug of driver.
For now, maybe. But huge mappings of PFN could land at some point, and
it'd be hard to catch. I think this case deserves a VM_BUG_ON().
>
> >> else
> >> vma_shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
> >>
> >> - if (logging_active ||
> >> - (vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP)) {
> >> + if (logging_active) {
BTW, don't you introduce a bug here? Logging shouldn't affect device
mappings.
> >> force_pte = true;
> >> vma_shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
> >> }
> >> @@ -855,7 +884,7 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> >>
> >> if (kvm_is_device_pfn(pfn)) {
> >> device = true;
> >> - force_pte = true;
> >> + force_pte = (vma_pagesize == PAGE_SIZE);
> >
> > Why do we need to set force_pte if we are already dealing with
> > PAGE_SIZE? I guess you are doing this for the sake of avoiding the
> > call to transparent_hugepage_adjust(), right?
> Yes.
>
> >
> > I'd rather you simply don't try to upgrade a device mapping by
> > explicitly checking for this and keep force_pte for *memory*
> > exclusively.
> Agree, that's better.
>
> >
> > Santosh, can you please take a look at this series and try to see if
> > the problem you fixed in [1] (which ended up as commit 91a2c34b7d6f)
> > is still OK with this series?
> I searched the initial version[*], VM_PFNMAP is set when we call
> gfn_to_pfn_prot()->vma_mmio_fault()->remap_pfn_range(). Then the
> check of VM_PFNMAP in user_mem_abort() failed, so we will try to
> call transparent_hugepage_adjust() for device pfn.
>
> In that case, our logic of trying block mapping for MMIO is not
> used. And we still set force_pte for device pfn, so this bugfix is
> not affected. Santosh, do you agree that?
But isn't what we just agreed to get rid of just above?
>
> I still found that the reason vfio_pci does not have this
> bug. vfio_pci set VM_PFNMAP for vma when userspace calls mmap(). I
> will apply this logic for vfio_mdev too, let's see what vfio
> maintainer think about it.
I think that'd be good to see what Alex thinks about it...
Here's the changes I propose. It is completely untested, of course.
Thanks,
M.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
index 8711894db8c2..f32d956cc199 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -738,6 +738,35 @@ transparent_hugepage_adjust(struct kvm_memory_slot
*memslot,
return PAGE_SIZE;
}
+static int get_vma_page_shift(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long hva)
+{
+ unsigned long pa;
+
+ if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma) && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP))
+ return huge_page_shift(hstate_vma(vma));
+
+ if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP))
+ return PAGE_SHIFT;
+
+ VM_BUG_ON(is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma));
+
+ pa = (vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT) + (hva - vma->vm_start);
+
+#ifndef __PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED
+ if ((hva & (PUD_SIZE - 1)) == (pa & (PUD_SIZE - 1)) &&
+ ALIGN_DOWN(hva, PUD_SIZE) >= vma->vm_start &&
+ ALIGN(hva, PUD_SIZE) <= vma->vm_end)
+ return PUD_SHIFT;
+#endif
+
+ if ((hva & (PMD_SIZE - 1)) == (pa & (PMD_SIZE - 1)) &&
+ ALIGN_DOWN(hva, PMD_SIZE) >= vma->vm_start &&
+ ALIGN(hva, PMD_SIZE) <= vma->vm_end)
+ return PMD_SHIFT;
+
+ return PAGE_SHIFT;
+}
+
static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot, unsigned long hva,
unsigned long fault_status)
@@ -778,13 +807,9 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
return -EFAULT;
}
- if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
- vma_shift = huge_page_shift(hstate_vma(vma));
- else
- vma_shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
+ vma_shift = get_vma_page_shift(vma, hva);
- if (logging_active ||
- (vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP)) {
+ if (logging_active && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP)) {
force_pte = true;
vma_shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
}
@@ -854,8 +879,17 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
return -EFAULT;
if (kvm_is_device_pfn(pfn)) {
+ /*
+ * If the page was identified as device early by looking at
+ * the VMA flags, vma_pagesize is already representing the
+ * largest quantity we can map. If instead it was mapped
+ * via gfn_to_pfn_prot(), vma_pagesize is set to PAGE_SIZE
+ * and must not be upgraded.
+ *
+ * In both cases, we don't let transparent_hugepage_adjust()
+ * change things at the last minute.
+ */
device = true;
- force_pte = true;
} else if (logging_active && !write_fault) {
/*
* Only actually map the page as writable if this was a write
@@ -876,7 +910,7 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
* If we are not forced to use page mapping, check if we are
* backed by a THP and thus use block mapping if possible.
*/
- if (vma_pagesize == PAGE_SIZE && !force_pte)
+ if (vma_pagesize == PAGE_SIZE && !(force_pte || device))
vma_pagesize = transparent_hugepage_adjust(memslot, hva,
&pfn, &fault_ipa);
if (writable)
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
