On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 9:37 AM Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 3:41 PM David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:28:19AM -0800, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> >
> > if (wrprot || spte_ad_need_write_protect(iter.old_spte))
> > clear_bits = PT_WRITABLE_MASK;
> > else
> > clear_bits = shadow_dirty_mask;
> >
> > if (!(iter->old_spte & clear_bits))
> > continue;
> >
> > iter.old_spte = kvm_tdp_mmu_clear_spte_bit(&iter, clear_bits);
> >
>
> Yeah, this is better. Even better if I just initialize like:
>
> u64 clear_bits = shadow_dirty_mask;
>
> This will also get rid of the else part.
On that topic... Do we need to recalculate clear_bits for every spte?
wrprot is passed as a parameter so that will not change. And
spte_ad_need_write_protect() should either return true or false for
all SPTEs in the TDP MMU. Specifically, make_spte() has this code:
if (sp->role.ad_disabled)
spte |= SPTE_TDP_AD_DISABLED_MASK;
else if (kvm_mmu_page_ad_need_write_protect(sp))
spte |= SPTE_TDP_AD_WRPROT_ONLY_MASK;
sp->role.ad_disabled is never modified in TDP MMU pages. So it should
be constant for all pages. And kvm_mmu_page_ad_need_write_protect()
will always return false for TDP MMU pages since sp->role.guest_mode
is always false.
So this can just be:
u64 clear_bit = (wrprot || !kvm_ad_enabled()) ? PT_WRITABLE_MASK :
shadow_dirty_mask;
