[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH net V2 4/4] vhost: log dirty page correctly

On 2018/12/26 下午9:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 01:43:26PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2018/12/26 上午12:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 05:43:25PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2018/12/25 上午1:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:43:31AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018/12/14 下午9:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:43:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018/12/13 下午10:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just to make sure I understand this. It looks to me we should:
>>>>>>>>>> - allow passing GIOVA->GPA through UAPI
>>>>>>>>>> - cache GIOVA->GPA somewhere but still use GIOVA->HVA in device IOTLB for
>>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>> Is this what you suggest?
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>> Not really. We already have GPA->HVA, so I suggested a flag to pass
>>>>>>>>> GIOVA->GPA in the IOTLB.
>>>>>>>>> This has advantages for security since a single table needs
>>>>>>>>> then to be validated to ensure guest does not corrupt
>>>>>>>>> QEMU memory.
>>>>>>>> I wonder how much we can gain through this. Currently, qemu IOMMU gives
>>>>>>>> GIOVA->GPA mapping, and qemu vhost code will translate GPA to HVA then pass
>>>>>>>> GIOVA->HVA to vhost. It looks no difference to me.
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> The difference is in security not in performance. Getting a bad HVA
>>>>>>> corrupts QEMU memory and it might be guest controlled. Very risky.
>>>>>> How can this be controlled by guest? HVA was generated from qemu ram blocks
>>>>>> which is totally under the control of qemu memory core instead of guest.
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> It is ultimately under guest influence as guest supplies IOVA->GPA
>>>>> translations. qemu translates GPA->HVA and gives the translated result
>>>>> to the kernel. If it's not buggy and kernel isn't buggy it's all
>>>>> fine.
>>>> If qemu provides buggy GPA->HVA, we can't workaround this. And I don't get
>>>> the point why we even want to try this. Buggy qemu code can crash itself in
>>>> many ways.
>>>>> But that's the approach that was proven not to work in the 20th century.
>>>>> In the 21st century we are trying defence in depth approach.
>>>>> My point is that a single code path that is responsible for
>>>>> the HVA translations is better than two.
>>>> So the difference whether or not use memory table information:
>>>> Current:
>>>> 2) Qemu GIOVA->GPA
>>>> 3) Qemu GPA->HVA
>>>> If I understand correctly you want to drop step 3 consider it might be buggy
>>>> which is just 19 lines of code in qemu (vhost_memory_region_lookup()). This
>>>> will ends up:
>>>> 1) Do GPA->HVA translation in IOTLB_UPDATE path (I believe we won't want to
>>>> do it during device IOTLB lookup).
>>>> 2) Extra bits to enable this capability.
>>>> So this looks need more codes in kernel than what qemu did in userspace.  Is
>>>> this really worthwhile?
>>>> Thanks
>>> So there are several points I would like to make
>>> 1. At the moment without an iommu it is possible to
>>> change GPA-HVA mappings and everything keeps working
>>> because a change in memory tables flushes the rings.
>> Interesting, I don't know this before. But when can this happen?
> It doesn't happen with existing qemu. But it seems like a valid
> thing to do to remap memory at a different address.


>>> However I don't see the iotlb cache being invalidated
>>> on that path - did I miss it? If it is not there it's
>>> a related minor bug.
>> It might have a bug. But a question is consider the case without IOMMU. We
>> only update mem table (SET_MEM_TABLE), but not vring address. This looks
>> like a bug as well?
> I think that without an iommu it can only work without races if backend is
> stopped or if the vring isn't in guest memory with ring aliasing).


>>> 2. qemu already has a GPA. Discarding it and re-calculating
>>> when logging is on just seems wrong.
>>> However if you would like to *also* keep the HVA in the iotlb
>>> to avoid doing extra translations, that sounds like a
>>> reasonable optimization.
>> Yes, traverse GPA->HVA mapping seems unnecessary.
>>> 3. it also means that the hva->gpa translation only runs
>>> when logging is enabled. That is a rarely excercised
>>> path so any bugs there will not be caught.
>> I wonder maybe some kind of unit-test may help here.
>>> So I really would like us long term to move away from
>>> hva->gpa translations, keep them for legacy userspace only
>>> but I don't really mind how we do it.
>>> How about
>>> - a new flag to pass an iotlb with *both* a gpa and hva
>>> - for legacy userspace, calculate the gpa on iotlb update
>>> so the device then uses a shared code path
>>> what do you think?
>> I don't object this idea so I can try, just want to figure out why it was a
>> must.
>> Thanks
> Not a must but I think it's a good interface extension.

Ok. let me try to do this.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-27 10:33    [W:0.051 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site