[PATCH v4 3/6] KVM: arm64: Add auto DBM support for hardware dirty tracking

[Leonardo Bras]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 04:21:32PM +0100, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 11:58:06AM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote:
> > 
> > On 7/16/2026 3:39 PM, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > > Hi Tian,
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 06:40:23PM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote:
> > > > -	if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W)
> > > > +	if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W) {
> > > >   		set |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S2_S2AP_W;
> > > > 
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		 * No DEVICE filter needed here: relax_perms is only called
> > > > +		 * on FSC_PERM faults. Device pages always get full RW from
> > > > +		 * initial mapping and are never write-protected during
> > > > +		 * migration, so they never trigger a permission fault.
> > > > +		 */
> > > > +		if (pgt->flags & KVM_PGTABLE_S2_DBM)
> > > > +			set |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_HI_S2_DBM;
> > > > +	} else {
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		 * Clear DBM on W→RO downgrade to prevent hardware from
> > > > +		 * silently upgrading RO+DBM back to W+dirty, which would
> > > > +		 * bypass KVM's write tracking and cause data corruption.
> > > > +		 */
> > > > +		clr |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_HI_S2_DBM;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > This block makes it pretty evident that the DBM bit really *is* the
> > > write permission bit. I'd much rather we introduce the concept of dirty
> > > state to the page table library and migrate the abstract write
> > > permission to the DBM field, even if we don't have FEAT_HAFDBS.
> > >
> 
> Ohh, that's an amazing idea!

Thinking about that again...
If we adopt the encoding with DBM being the write-permission bit, and all 
PTEs have it since the start, how can we have lazy-splitting happening?

Only way I think of is removing both DBM and S2_S2AP_W bit from writable 
PTEs during dirty-track enable, and re-adding them during the first write 
fault. If we don't remove the DBM bit, systems with HDBSS would just dirty 
it by hardware, without causing a fault.

DBM=0 would need to happen only in the first write-protect (only on 
lazy-splitting). All other write-protecting would just clean the S2_S2AP_W 
bit, as everything is already split.  

Is that what was intended?

Thanks!
Leo