[PATCH v5 05/15] KVM: arm64: Harvest stage-2 dirty state into the host folio account

[Leonardo Bras]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2026 at 10:02:10PM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/27/2026 2:05 AM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > Hi Tian,
> > Sorry for the delay in reviewing...
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 06:36:45PM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote:
> > > With VTCR_EL2.HD set, hardware promotes writable-clean descriptors to
> > > writable-dirty without any VM exit, and the only record of the write
> > > is the S2AP[1] bit in the stage-2 PTE. The write never passed through
> > > the host stage-1, and no unmap path reads the bit, so the record dies
> > > with the PTE and reclaim may discard written guest data (silent
> > > corruption).
> > 
> > Sorry, I didn't get what you are trying to achieve here.
> > 
> > On your patch, I see you marking backing pages dirty at wrprotect and unmap
> > walkers, and it's very confusing to me on why you are doing this.
> > 
> > IIUC, what you are trying to do is make sure a page does not lose it's
> > contents in case it is reclaimed by the OS.
> > 
> > IIUC, when a page is reclaimed, it will unmap the S2 PTE, and save it's
> > contents to swap, so when the guest read or write to that page will cause
> > it to fault.
> > 
> > The page can never be just unmaped, as if there was a single write to it,
> > the backing pages should be writable, and the contents need to be saved
> > somewhere.
> > 
> > So, if I was able to understand your suggestion, we don't need to worry
> > about this, and this patch wouldn't be necessary.
> > 
> > Did you hit this issue?
> > Can you please expand on your issue, if I could not describe it above?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > Leo
> 
> Hi Leo,
> 
> Thanks for the review. I haven't hit this in practice, and based on your
> analysis the patch doesn't look necessary.
> 
> Reclaim only writes back folios whose PG_dirty flag is set; a clean
> folio is simply freed. A stage-2 write never touches the host
> stage-1, so the folio depends entirely on kvm_release_faultin_page()
> at fault-in to be marked as dirty; without it, the page stays clean from
> the host's perspective and reclaim drops the data.
> 

Oh, okay. IIUC it will be enough if PG_dirty flag is set once, right?

While on HAFDBS/HDBSS we will skip the fault for marking them dirty again, 
we always take the first fault for every PTE (or prefault them), so 
PG_dirty should always be set once the page is first wroten to.  


> Your **RFC v1** patch 2 changed that marking from writable to dirty:
> 
> ```
> - kvm_release_faultin_page(kvm, s2vi->page, !!ret, writable);
> + kvm_release_faultin_page(kvm, s2vi->page, !!ret, dirty);
> ```
> 
> During logging, a read fault maps the page as WC: the folio is not
> marked PG_dirty in kvm_s2_fault_map() and hardware promotes the PTE to
> WD on write without any fault, so reclaim frees the page without saving
> it (the folio was treated as clean).

Ah, I see your point.
During dirty-tracking guest reads a page, then HAFDBS promotes it to 
writable without marking it as dirty. Good catch!

But wouldn't a simpler solution be to change the conditions in the fault 
handler, so that it indeed marks it as dirty if dirty-tracking is on, even 
if it's just a read fault? 

Thanks! 
Leo

> 
> Therefore, **HDBSS v5** patch 2 reverted to marking the folio for any
> write-permitting mapping:
> 
> ```
> kvm_release_faultin_page(kvm, s2vi->page, !!ret, writable);
> ```
> 
> Together with the v5 scheme, this makes patch 5 unnecessary:
> 
> - kvm_s2_fault_compute_prot: always set PROT_W when map_writable
> - stage2_set_prot_attr: PROT_W -> DBM unconditionally
> 
> 
> ---------
> 
> On a related note, I'd like to discuss the next version of the DBM
> scheme, following Oliver's suggestion [1].

Just as a note for future readers: on another thread we agreed to wait for 
the discussion to reach a point we are all happy before rebasing 
everything.