[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] target/riscv: Don't set write permissions on dirty PT

From: Richard Henderson
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] target/riscv: Don't set write permissions on dirty PTEs
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 09:34:24 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1

On 3/3/20 5:16 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
> The RISC-V spec specifies that when a write happens and the D bit is
> clear the implementation will set the bit in the PTE. It does not
> describe that the PTE being dirty means that we should provide write
> access. This patch removes the write access granted to pages when the
> dirty bit is set.

The W bit by itself says we should provide write access.

It is an implementation detail that we *withhold* write access when D is clear
(etc) so that we can trap, so that we can properly set D in the future.

The page table walk associated with a read is allowed to cache all of the
information it finds in the PTE during that walk.  Which includes the D bit.
If D is set, then we do not need to set it in future, so we do not need to
trap, so we can immediately honor the W bit.

If the guest changes R/W/X within a PTE (e.g. for mprotect), it is obvious that
a TLB flush for that page must be done.  It is no different if the guest
changes A/D (e.g. for swapping).

> Setting write permission on dirty PTEs results in userspace inside a
> Hypervisor guest (VU) becoming corrupted. This appears to be because it
> ends up with write permission in the second stage translation in cases
> where we aren't doing a store.

You've not really given any more information than last time this patch came 

I still think this must be a guest (or nested guest) bug related to clearing
PTE bits and failing to flush the TLB properly.

I don't see how it could be a qemu tlb flushing bug.  The only primitive,
sfence.vma, is quite heavy-handed and explicitly local to the thread.

It may be a bug in qemu's implementation of second stage paging.  Which is not
yet upstream, and I haven't gone digging in the archives to find the patch.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]