[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZyugUvS5dMwXU5nW@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 16:58:58 +0000
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>,
Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>,
Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@...gle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/18] KVM: arm64: Introduce the EL1 pKVM MMU
On Monday 04 Nov 2024 at 13:32:03 (+0000), Quentin Perret wrote:
> +bool pkvm_pgtable_test_clear_young(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr, u64 size, bool mkold)
> +{
> + pkvm_handle_t handle = pkvm_pgt_to_handle(pgt);
> + struct pkvm_mapping *mapping;
> + struct rb_node *tmp;
> + bool young = false;
> +
> + read_lock(&pgt->pkvm.mappings_lock);
> + for_each_mapping_in_range(pgt, addr, addr + size, mapping, tmp)
> + young |= kvm_call_hyp_nvhe(__pkvm_host_wrprotect_guest, handle, mapping->gfn, mkold);
> + read_unlock(&pgt->pkvm.mappings_lock);
> +
> + return young;
> +}
I just observed a funny behaviour in one of my tests, the above explains
it ... Can you find the bug? Ahem. I'll fix in v2 obviously.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists