Hi Will,
On 8/25/20 10:39 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> [..]
> +static void kvm_set_table_pte(kvm_pte_t *ptep, kvm_pte_t *childp)
> +{
> + kvm_pte_t old = *ptep, pte = kvm_phys_to_pte(__pa(childp));
> +
> + pte |= FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_TYPE, KVM_PTE_TYPE_TABLE);
> + pte |= KVM_PTE_VALID;
> +
> + WARN_ON(kvm_pte_valid(old));
> + smp_store_release(ptep, pte);
> +}
> +
> +static bool kvm_set_valid_leaf_pte(kvm_pte_t *ptep, u64 pa, kvm_pte_t attr,
> + u32 level)
> +{
> + kvm_pte_t old = *ptep, pte = kvm_phys_to_pte(pa);
> + u64 type = (level == KVM_PGTABLE_MAX_LEVELS - 1) ? KVM_PTE_TYPE_PAGE :
> + KVM_PTE_TYPE_BLOCK;
> +
> + pte |= attr & (KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO | KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_HI);
> + pte |= FIELD_PREP(KVM_PTE_TYPE, type);
> + pte |= KVM_PTE_VALID;
> +
> + /* Tolerate KVM recreating the exact same mapping. */
> + if (kvm_pte_valid(old))
> + return old == pte;
> +
> + smp_store_release(ptep, pte);
> + return true;
> +}
These two functions look inconsistent to me - we refuse to update a valid leaf
entry with a new value, but we allow updating a valid table. Is there something
that I'm not taking into account?
Thanks,
Alex
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
