[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YPag0YQHB0nph5ji@google.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:09:21 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, will@...nel.org,
dbrazdil@...gle.com, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...eaurora.org>,
Shanker R Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] KVM: arm64: Turn kvm_pgtable_stage2_set_owner into
kvm_pgtable_stage2_annotate
On Thursday 15 Jul 2021 at 17:31:46 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> @@ -815,7 +807,7 @@ int kvm_pgtable_stage2_set_owner(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr, u64 size,
> .arg = &map_data,
> };
>
> - if (owner_id > KVM_MAX_OWNER_ID)
> + if (!annotation || (annotation & PTE_VALID))
> return -EINVAL;
Why do you consider annotation==0 invalid? The assumption so far has
been that the owner_id for the host is 0, so annotating a range with 0s
should be a valid operation -- this will be required when e.g.
transferring ownership of a page back to the host.
>
> ret = kvm_pgtable_walk(pgt, addr, size, &walker);
> --
> 2.30.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists