Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>> for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(vcpu->kvm, s, gfn, node) {
>> + if (!can_unsync)
>> + return 1;
>> +
>>
>
> What if the page is already unsync? We don't need write protection in
> this case.
Avi,
The reason is when we sync children sps, we write-protected for all sps first,
list relevant code:
| static void mmu_sync_children(...)
| {
| ......
| for_each_sp(pages, sp, parents, i)
| protected |= rmap_write_protect(vcpu->kvm, sp->gfn);
<==== A
|
| if (protected)
| kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
|
| for_each_sp(pages, sp, parents, i) {
| kvm_sync_page(vcpu, sp, &invalid_list); <==== B
| mmu_pages_clear_parents(&parents);
| }
| ......
|}
For example:
SP1.pte[0] = P
SP2.gfn's pfn = P
[SP1.pte[0] = SP2.gfn's pfn]
At A point, SP1.gfn and SP2.gfn are write-protected.
At B point, if sync SP1 first, while it's synced. it will detect SP1.pte[0].gfn
only has one unsync-sp,
that is SP2, so it will mapping it writable, then we sync SP2, we will set SP2
to sync page.
The final result is: SP2 is the sync page but SP2.gfn is writable.
Note: we not do write-protected in kvm_sync_page() anymore after commit:
95b4b26cfc
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
