[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZUGScpSFlojjloQk@google.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 16:49:06 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Paul Durrant <paul@....org>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Durrant <pdurrant@...zon.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/11] KVM: pfncache: allow a cache to be activated
with a fixed (userspace) HVA
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023, Paul Durrant wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_types.h b/include/linux/kvm_types.h
> index 6f4737d5046a..d49946ee7ae3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_types.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_types.h
> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ struct gfn_to_hva_cache {
>
> struct gfn_to_pfn_cache {
> u64 generation;
> - gpa_t gpa;
> + u64 addr;
Holy moly, we have unions for exactly this reason.
union {
gpa_t gpa;
unsigned long addr;
};
But that's also weird and silly because it's basically the exact same thing as
"uhva". If "uhva" stores the full address instead of the page-aligned address,
then I don't see a need for unionizing the gpa and uhva.
kvm_xen_vcpu_get_attr() should darn well explicitly check that the gpc stores
the correct type and not bleed ABI into the gfn_to_pfn_cache implementation.
If there's a true need for a union, the helpers should WARN.
> +unsigned long kvm_gpc_hva(struct gfn_to_pfn_cache *gpc)
> +{
> + return !gpc->addr_is_gpa ? gpc->addr : 0;
'0' is a perfectly valid address. Yeah, practically speaking '0' can't be used
these days, but we already have KVM_HVA_ERR_BAD. If y'all want to use the for the
Xen ABI, then so be it. But the common helpers need to use a sane value.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists