On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 05:31:45PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Make sure we don't issue CMOs when mapping something that
> is not a memory address in the S2 page tables.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c | 16 ++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> index 05321f4165e3..a5874ebd0354 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> @@ -619,12 +619,16 @@ static int stage2_map_walker_try_leaf(u64 addr, u64 end, u32 level,
> }
>
> /* Perform CMOs before installation of the guest stage-2 PTE */
> - if (mm_ops->dcache_clean_inval_poc && stage2_pte_cacheable(pgt, new))
> - mm_ops->dcache_clean_inval_poc(kvm_pte_follow(new, mm_ops),
> - granule);
> -
> - if (mm_ops->icache_inval_pou && stage2_pte_executable(new))
> - mm_ops->icache_inval_pou(kvm_pte_follow(new, mm_ops), granule);
> + if (kvm_phys_is_valid(phys)) {
> + if (mm_ops->dcache_clean_inval_poc &&
> + stage2_pte_cacheable(pgt, new))
> + mm_ops->dcache_clean_inval_poc(kvm_pte_follow(new,
> + mm_ops),
> + granule);
> + if (mm_ops->icache_inval_pou && stage2_pte_executable(new))
> + mm_ops->icache_inval_pou(kvm_pte_follow(new, mm_ops),
> + granule);
> + }
Given that this check corresponds to checking the validity of 'new', I
wonder whether we'd be better off pushing the validity checks down into
stage2_pte_{cacheable,executable}()?
I.e. have stage2_pte_cacheable() return false if !kvm_pte_valid()
Will
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
