On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:13:20 +0100,
Quentin Perret <qperret@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 15 Jul 2021 at 17:31:47 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > +struct s2_walk_data {
> > + kvm_pte_t pteval;
> > + u32 level;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int s2_walker(u64 addr, u64 end, u32 level, kvm_pte_t *ptep,
> > + enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags flag, void * const arg)
> > +{
> > + struct s2_walk_data *data = arg;
> > +
> > + data->level = level;
> > + data->pteval = *ptep;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/* Assumes mmu_lock taken */
> > +static bool __check_ioguard_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t ipa)
> > +{
> > + struct s2_walk_data data;
> > + struct kvm_pgtable_walker walker = {
> > + .cb = s2_walker,
> > + .flags = KVM_PGTABLE_WALK_LEAF,
> > + .arg = &data,
> > + };
> > +
> > + kvm_pgtable_walk(vcpu->arch.hw_mmu->pgt, ALIGN_DOWN(ipa, PAGE_SIZE),
> > + PAGE_SIZE, &walker);
> > +
> > + /* Must be a PAGE_SIZE mapping with our annotation */
> > + return (BIT(ARM64_HW_PGTABLE_LEVEL_SHIFT(data.level)) == PAGE_SIZE &&
> > + data.pteval == MMIO_NOTE);
>
> Nit: you could do this check in the walker directly and check the return
> value of kvm_pgtable_walk() instead. That would allow to get rid of
> struct s2_walk_data.
>
> Also, though the compiler might be able to optimize, maybe simplify the
> level check to level == (KVM_PGTABLE_MAX_LEVELS - 1)?
Yup, all good points. I guess I could do the same in my other series
that parses the userspace PT to extract the level.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
