On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 12:19:50PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 06:23:23PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 05:49:52PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 04:56:55PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > -static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_begin(void) {}
> > > > -static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_end(void) {}
> > > > +static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_begin(struct kvm_pgtable_walker *walker)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Due to the lack of RCU (or a similar protection scheme), only
> > > > + * non-shared table walkers are allowed in the hypervisor.
> > > > + */
> > > > + WARN_ON(walker->flags & KVM_PGTABLE_WALK_SHARED);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > I think it would be better to propagate the error to the caller rather
> > > than WARN here.
> >
> > I'd really like to warn somewhere though since we're rather fscked at
> > this point. Keeping that WARN close to the exceptional condition would
> > help w/ debugging.
> >
> > Were you envisioning bubbling the error all the way back up (i.e. early
> > return from kvm_pgtable_walk())?
>
> Yes, that's what I had in mind. WARN is fatal at EL2, so I think it's
> better to fail the pgtable operation rather than bring down the entire
> machine by default.
Duh, I forgot WARNs really do go boom at EL2. Yeah, in that case it'd be
best to let the caller clean up the mess.
> > If having this is a strong motivator I can do a v4.
>
> It's a really minor point, so I'll leave it up to you guys.
Sold (sorry I wasn't following before). v4 on the way.
--
Thanks,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
