Re: [PATCH v2] hw/virtio/vhost: re-factor vhost-section and allow DIRTY_MEMORY_CODE

[Alex Bennée]

Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> writes:

> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 11:19:30AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> 
>> Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 02:40:22PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> >> The purpose of vhost_section is to identify RAM regions that need to
>> >> be made available to a vhost client. However when running under TCG
>> >> all RAM sections have DIRTY_MEMORY_CODE set which leads to problems
>> >> down the line.
>> >> 
>> >> Re-factor the code so:
>> >> 
>> >>   - steps are clearer to follow
>> >>   - reason for rejection is recorded in the trace point
>> >>   - we allow DIRTY_MEMORY_CODE when TCG is enabled
>> >> 
>> >> We expand the comment to explain that kernel based vhost has specific
>> >> support for migration tracking.
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
>> >> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
>> >> Cc: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
>> >> Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
>> >> 
>> >> ---
>> >> v2
>> >>   - drop enum, add trace_vhost_reject_section
>> >>   - return false at any fail point
>> >>   - unconditionally add DIRTY_MEMORY_CODE to handled cases
>> >>   - slightly re-word the explanatory comment and commit message
>> >> ---
>> >>  hw/virtio/vhost.c      | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>> >>  hw/virtio/trace-events |  3 ++-
>> >>  2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>> >> 
>> >> diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost.c b/hw/virtio/vhost.c
>> >> index aff98a0ede5..120c0cc747b 100644
>> >> --- a/hw/virtio/vhost.c
>> >> +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost.c
>> >> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>> >>  #include "migration/blocker.h"
>> >>  #include "migration/qemu-file-types.h"
>> >>  #include "sysemu/dma.h"
>> >> +#include "sysemu/tcg.h"
>> >>  #include "trace.h"
>> >>  
>> >>  /* enabled until disconnected backend stabilizes */
>> >> @@ -403,26 +404,48 @@ static int vhost_verify_ring_mappings(struct 
>> >> vhost_dev *dev,
>> >>      return r;
>> >>  }
>> >>  
>> >> +/*
>> >> + * vhost_section: identify sections needed for vhost access
>> >> + *
>> >> + * We only care about RAM sections here (where virtqueue can live). If
>> >
>> > It's not just the virtqueue. Arbitrary guest RAM buffers can be placed
>> > into the virtqueue so we need to pass all guest RAM to the vhost device
>> > backend.
>> >
>> >> + * we find one we still allow the backend to potentially filter it out
>> >> + * of our list.
>> >> + */
>> >>  static bool vhost_section(struct vhost_dev *dev, MemoryRegionSection 
>> >> *section)
>> >>  {
>> >> -    bool result;
>> >> -    bool log_dirty = memory_region_get_dirty_log_mask(section->mr) &
>> >> -                     ~(1 << DIRTY_MEMORY_MIGRATION);
>> >> -    result = memory_region_is_ram(section->mr) &&
>> >> -        !memory_region_is_rom(section->mr);
>> >> -
>> >> -    /* Vhost doesn't handle any block which is doing dirty-tracking other
>> >> -     * than migration; this typically fires on VGA areas.
>> >> -     */
>> >> -    result &= !log_dirty;
>> >> +    MemoryRegion *mr = section->mr;
>> >> +
>> >> +    if (memory_region_is_ram(mr) && !memory_region_is_rom(mr)) {
>> >> +        uint8_t dirty_mask = memory_region_get_dirty_log_mask(mr);
>> >> +        uint8_t handled_dirty;
>> >> +
>> >> +        /*
>> >> +         * Kernel based vhost doesn't handle any block which is doing
>> >> +         * dirty-tracking other than migration for which it has
>> >> +         * specific logging support. However for TCG the kernel never
>> >> +         * gets involved anyway so we can also ignore it's
>> >> +         * self-modiying code detection flags.
>> >> +         */
>> >> +        handled_dirty = (1 << DIRTY_MEMORY_MIGRATION);
>> >> +        handled_dirty |= (1 << DIRTY_MEMORY_CODE);
>> >
>> > Wait, how is vhost going to support TCG self-modifying code detection?
>> >
>> > It seems like this change will allow vhost devices to run, but now QEMU
>> > will miss out on self-modifying code. Do we already enable vhost dirty
>> > memory logging for DIRTY_MEMORY_CODE memory somehwere?
>> 
>> Well any guest code running will still trigger the SMC detection. It's
>> true we currently don't have a mechanism if the vhost-user client
>> updates an executable page.
>
> Seems like a problem. If it didn't matter we could get rid of
> DIRTY_MEMORY_CODE entirely.
>
> If an exception is being made here because I/O devices aren't expected
> to trigger SMC in real-world guests, please document it.

In the comment here or somewhere in the docs?

-- 
Alex Bennée