[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51eeb843-204f-5b9d-9f7f-9bf3c22d2c00@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:10:54 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] x86/sev: Fix calculation of end address based on
number of pages
On 9/27/22 10:04, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/sev.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/sev.c
> @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ static void pvalidate_pages(unsigned long vaddr, unsigned int npages, bool valid
> int rc;
>
> vaddr = vaddr & PAGE_MASK;
> - vaddr_end = vaddr + (npages << PAGE_SHIFT);
> + vaddr_end = vaddr + ((unsigned long)npages << PAGE_SHIFT);
Could we please just fix the fragile typing that cascaded down to this
point?
Shouldn't 'npages' in this interface be a long?
> struct x86_guest {
> void (*enc_status_change_prepare)(unsigned long vaddr, int npages, bool enc);
> bool (*enc_status_change_finish)(unsigned long vaddr, int npages, bool enc);
> bool (*enc_tlb_flush_required)(bool enc);
> bool (*enc_cache_flush_required)(void);
> };
Powered by blists - more mailing lists