On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:59 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > @@ -1677,8 +1670,13 @@ bool kvm_tdp_mmu_clear_dirty_slot(struct kvm *kvm,
> > static void clear_dirty_pt_masked(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *root,
> > gfn_t gfn, unsigned long mask, bool wrprot)
> > {
> > + /*
> > + * Either all SPTEs in TDP MMU will need write protection or none. This
> > + * contract will not be modified for TDP MMU pages.
> > + */
> > + u64 clear_bit = (wrprot || !kvm_ad_enabled()) ? PT_WRITABLE_MASK :
> > + shadow_dirty_mask;
>
> Switching from spte_ad_need_write_protect() to kvm_ad_enabled() belongs in a
> separate. In the unlikely event that the above assertion/contracts is invalid,
> then any issues should bisect to the switch, not to a much more complex patch.
>
> I'll make that happen when applying.
Make sense, thanks!
