Re: [RFC PATCH V2 0/4] KVM: X86: Add and use shadow page with level expanded or acting as pae_root

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 3/29/22 17:36, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@antgroup.com>
> 
> (Request For Help for testing on AMD machine with 32 bit L1 hypervisor,
> see information below)
> 
> KVM handles root pages specially for these cases:
> 
> direct mmu (nonpaping for 32 bit guest):
> 	gCR0_PG=0
> shadow mmu (shadow paping for 32 bit guest):
> 	gCR0_PG=1,gEFER_LMA=0,gCR4_PSE=0
> 	gCR0_PG=1,gEFER_LMA=0,gCR4_PSE=1
> direct mmu (NPT for 32bit host):
> 	hEFER_LMA=0
> shadow nested NPT (for 32bit L1 hypervisor):
> 	gCR0_PG=1,gEFER_LMA=0,gCR4_PSE=0,hEFER_LMA=0
> 	gCR0_PG=1,gEFER_LMA=0,gCR4_PSE=1,hEFER_LMA=0
> 	gCR0_PG=1,gEFER_LMA=0,gCR4_PSE={0|1},hEFER_LMA=1,hCR4_LA57={0|1}
> Shadow nested NPT for 64bit L1 hypervisor:
> 	gEFER_LMA=1,gCR4_LA57=0,hEFER_LMA=1,hCR4_LA57=1
> 
> They are either using special roots or matched the condition
> ((mmu->shadow_root_level > mmu->root_level) && !mm->direct_map)
> (refered as level expansion) or both.
> 
> All the cases are using special roots except the last one.
> Many cases are doing level expansion including the last one.

Hi Jiangshan,

so the main difference between direct and passthrough shadow pages is 
that passthrough pages can have indirect children.  A direct page maps 
the page at sp->gfn, while a passthrough page maps the page _table_ at 
sp->gfn.  Is this correct?

If so, I think there is a difference between a passthrough page that
maps a level-2 page from level-4, and a passthrough page that maps a
level-3 page from level-4.  If that is true, a single bit in the role
is not enough.

One way to handle this could be to have a single field "mapping_level"
that subsumes both "direct" and "passthrough".  direct==1
would correspond to "mapping_level == 0"; direct==0 && passthrough==0 
would be "mapping_level == level"; anything in the middle would be a 
passthrough page in your series.

What do you think?

Thanks,

Paolo