[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z1iYsVFgs1Cjwp2x@google.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:38:25 +0000
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>
Cc: 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>,
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 v2 13/18] KVM: arm64: Introduce
__pkvm_host_wrprotect_guest()
On Tuesday 10 Dec 2024 at 15:06:53 (+0000), Fuad Tabba wrote:
> > +static void handle___pkvm_host_wrprotect_guest(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
> > +{
> > + DECLARE_REG(pkvm_handle_t, handle, host_ctxt, 1);
> > + DECLARE_REG(u64, gfn, host_ctxt, 2);
> > + struct pkvm_hyp_vm *hyp_vm;
> > + int ret = -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (!is_protected_kvm_enabled())
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + hyp_vm = get_pkvm_hyp_vm(handle);
> > + if (!hyp_vm)
> > + goto out;
> > + if (pkvm_hyp_vm_is_protected(hyp_vm))
> > + goto put_hyp_vm;
>
> These checks are (unsurprisingly) the same for all these functions.
> Does it make sense to have a helper do these checks?
Yup, that makes sense and should simplify the error handling on all the
call sites. I'll probably call that get_np_pkvm_hyp_vm() or something
along those lines and shove in pkvm.c in v3.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists