| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20240926013506.860253-2-jthoughton@google.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 01:34:49 +0000
From: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: [PATCH v7 01/18] KVM: Remove kvm_handle_hva_range helper functions
kvm_handle_hva_range is only used by the young notifiers. In a later
patch, it will be even further tied to the young notifiers. Instead of
renaming kvm_handle_hva_range to something like
kvm_handle_hva_range_young, simply remove kvm_handle_hva_range. This
seems slightly more readable, though there is slightly more code
duplication.
Finally, rename __kvm_handle_hva_range to kvm_handle_hva_range, now that
the name is available.
Suggested-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
---
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index d51357fd28d7..090e79e4304f 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -589,8 +589,8 @@ static void kvm_null_fn(void)
node; \
node = interval_tree_iter_next(node, start, last)) \
-static __always_inline kvm_mn_ret_t __kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
- const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range *range)
+static __always_inline kvm_mn_ret_t kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
+ const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range *range)
{
struct kvm_mmu_notifier_return r = {
.ret = false,
@@ -666,42 +666,6 @@ static __always_inline kvm_mn_ret_t __kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
return r;
}
-static __always_inline int kvm_handle_hva_range(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
- unsigned long start,
- unsigned long end,
- gfn_handler_t handler)
-{
- struct kvm *kvm = mmu_notifier_to_kvm(mn);
- const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range range = {
- .start = start,
- .end = end,
- .handler = handler,
- .on_lock = (void *)kvm_null_fn,
- .flush_on_ret = true,
- .may_block = false,
- };
-
- return __kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &range).ret;
-}
-
-static __always_inline int kvm_handle_hva_range_no_flush(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
- unsigned long start,
- unsigned long end,
- gfn_handler_t handler)
-{
- struct kvm *kvm = mmu_notifier_to_kvm(mn);
- const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range range = {
- .start = start,
- .end = end,
- .handler = handler,
- .on_lock = (void *)kvm_null_fn,
- .flush_on_ret = false,
- .may_block = false,
- };
-
- return __kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &range).ret;
-}
-
void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm)
{
lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
@@ -794,7 +758,7 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
* that guest memory has been reclaimed. This needs to be done *after*
* dropping mmu_lock, as x86's reclaim path is slooooow.
*/
- if (__kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &hva_range).found_memslot)
+ if (kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &hva_range).found_memslot)
kvm_arch_guest_memory_reclaimed(kvm);
return 0;
@@ -840,7 +804,7 @@ static void kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
};
bool wake;
- __kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &hva_range);
+ kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &hva_range);
/* Pairs with the increment in range_start(). */
spin_lock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock);
@@ -862,9 +826,19 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_clear_flush_young(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
unsigned long start,
unsigned long end)
{
+ struct kvm *kvm = mmu_notifier_to_kvm(mn);
+ const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range range = {
+ .start = start,
+ .end = end,
+ .handler = kvm_age_gfn,
+ .on_lock = (void *)kvm_null_fn,
+ .flush_on_ret = true,
+ .may_block = false,
+ };
+
trace_kvm_age_hva(start, end);
- return kvm_handle_hva_range(mn, start, end, kvm_age_gfn);
+ return kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &range).ret;
}
static int kvm_mmu_notifier_clear_young(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
@@ -872,6 +846,16 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_clear_young(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
unsigned long start,
unsigned long end)
{
+ struct kvm *kvm = mmu_notifier_to_kvm(mn);
+ const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range range = {
+ .start = start,
+ .end = end,
+ .handler = kvm_age_gfn,
+ .on_lock = (void *)kvm_null_fn,
+ .flush_on_ret = false,
+ .may_block = false,
+ };
+
trace_kvm_age_hva(start, end);
/*
@@ -887,17 +871,26 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_clear_young(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
* cadence. If we find this inaccurate, we might come up with a
* more sophisticated heuristic later.
*/
- return kvm_handle_hva_range_no_flush(mn, start, end, kvm_age_gfn);
+ return kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &range).ret;
}
static int kvm_mmu_notifier_test_young(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
struct mm_struct *mm,
unsigned long address)
{
+ struct kvm *kvm = mmu_notifier_to_kvm(mn);
+ const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range range = {
+ .start = address,
+ .end = address + 1,
+ .handler = kvm_test_age_gfn,
+ .on_lock = (void *)kvm_null_fn,
+ .flush_on_ret = false,
+ .may_block = false,
+ };
+
trace_kvm_test_age_hva(address);
- return kvm_handle_hva_range_no_flush(mn, address, address + 1,
- kvm_test_age_gfn);
+ return kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &range).ret;
}
static void kvm_mmu_notifier_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
--
2.46.0.792.g87dc391469-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists