On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 10:26:42 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 07:00:24PM +0300, Adalbert Lazăr wrote: > > This patch might be obsolete thanks to single-stepping. > > sooo should it be skipped from this large patchset to easy > review? I'll add a couple of warning messages to check if this patch is still needed, in order to skip it from the next submission (which will be smaller:) However, on AMD, single-stepping is not an option. Thanks, Adalbert > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adalbert Lazăr <alazar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 9 +++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > > index 2c06de73a784..06f44ce8ed07 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > > @@ -6311,7 +6311,8 @@ static bool reexecute_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t cr2, > > indirect_shadow_pages = vcpu->kvm->arch.indirect_shadow_pages; > > spin_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock); > > > > - if (indirect_shadow_pages) > > + if (indirect_shadow_pages > > + && !kvmi_tracked_gfn(vcpu, gpa_to_gfn(gpa))) > > kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(vcpu->kvm, gpa_to_gfn(gpa)); > > > > return true; > > @@ -6322,7 +6323,8 @@ static bool reexecute_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t cr2, > > * and it failed try to unshadow page and re-enter the > > * guest to let CPU execute the instruction. > > */ > > - kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(vcpu->kvm, gpa_to_gfn(gpa)); > > + if (!kvmi_tracked_gfn(vcpu, gpa_to_gfn(gpa))) > > + kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(vcpu->kvm, gpa_to_gfn(gpa)); > > > > /* > > * If the access faults on its page table, it can not > > @@ -6374,6 +6376,9 @@ static bool retry_instruction(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt, > > if (!vcpu->arch.mmu->direct_map) > > gpa = kvm_mmu_gva_to_gpa_write(vcpu, cr2, NULL); > > > > + if (kvmi_tracked_gfn(vcpu, gpa_to_gfn(gpa))) > > + return false; > > + > > kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(vcpu->kvm, gpa_to_gfn(gpa)); > > > > return true;
