[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YPanmXfdr9rqnICK@google.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:38:17 +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 Tuesday 20 Jul 2021 at 11:21:17 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:09:21 +0100,
> Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> How do you then distinguish it from an empty entry that doesn't map to
> anything at all?
You don't, but that's beauty of it :)
The host starts with a PGD full of zeroes, which in terms of ownership
means that it owns the entire (I)PA space. And it loses ownership of a
page only when we explicitly annotate it with an owner id != 0.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists