[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86frllwilm.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:55:17 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@...gle.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com,
joey.gouly@....com,
kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
oliver.upton@...ux.dev,
suzuki.poulose@....com,
will@...nel.org,
yuzenghui@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Fix the upper limit of the walker range
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:50:51 +0000,
Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Prevent the walker from running into weeds when walking an
> entire address range.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@...gle.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> index 40bd55966..2ffb5571e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ static int _kvm_pgtable_walk(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, struct kvm_pgtable_walk_da
> {
> u32 idx;
> int ret = 0;
> - u64 limit = BIT(pgt->ia_bits);
> + u64 limit = BIT(pgt->ia_bits) - 1;
>
> if (data->addr > limit || data->end > limit)
> return -ERANGE;
Huh, nice catch. I guess this deserves a
Fixes: b1e57de62cfb4 ("KVM: arm64: Add stand-alone page-table walker infrastructure")
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
right?
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists