[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aCQ05eUM+U9N2bZ7@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 14:15:01 +0800
From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
CC: <pbonzini@...hat.com>, <seanjc@...gle.com>, <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
<isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, <kai.huang@...el.com>, <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
<linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 08/12] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Add phys_prepare() and
phys_cleanup() to kvm_x86_ops
>+static int tdp_mmu_install_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>+ struct tdp_iter *iter,
>+ u64 spte)
>+{
>+ kvm_pfn_t pfn = 0;
>+ int ret = 0;
>+
>+ if (is_mirror_sptep(iter->sptep) && !is_frozen_spte(spte)) {
>+ pfn = spte_to_pfn(spte);
>+ ret = static_call(kvm_x86_phys_prepare)(vcpu, pfn);
nit: kvm is using kvm_x86_call() in most of cases, e.g.,
ret = kvm_x86_call(phys_prepare)(vcpu, pfn);
>+ }
>+ if (ret)
>+ return ret;
fold this chunk into the if() statement above to align with tdp_mmu_link_sp()
below?
I'm concerned about handling phys_prepare() failures. Such failures may not be
recoverable. ...
>+ ret = tdp_mmu_set_spte_atomic(vcpu->kvm, iter, spte);
>+ if (pfn && ret)
>+ static_call(kvm_x86_phys_cleanup)(pfn);
>+
>+ return ret;
>+}
>+
> /*
> * Installs a last-level SPTE to handle a TDP page fault.
> * (NPT/EPT violation/misconfiguration)
>@@ -1170,7 +1190,7 @@ static int tdp_mmu_map_handle_target_level(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>
> if (new_spte == iter->old_spte)
> ret = RET_PF_SPURIOUS;
>- else if (tdp_mmu_set_spte_atomic(vcpu->kvm, iter, new_spte))
>+ else if (tdp_mmu_install_spte(vcpu, iter, new_spte))
> return RET_PF_RETRY;
if RET_FP_RETRY is returned here, it could potentially cause an infinite loop.
I think we need a KVM_BUG_ON() somewhere.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists