On Thu, 2023-09-14 at 08:49 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/xen.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/xen.c
> @@ -430,14 +430,13 @@ static void kvm_xen_update_runstate_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *v, bool atomic)
> smp_wmb();
> }
>
> - if (user_len2)
> + if (user_len2) {
> + kvm_gpc_mark_dirty(gpc2);
> read_unlock(&gpc2->lock);
> + }
>
> + kvm_gpc_mark_dirty(gpc1);
> read_unlock_irqrestore(&gpc1->lock, flags);
> -
> - mark_page_dirty_in_slot(v->kvm, gpc1->memslot, gpc1->gpa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> - if (user_len2)
> - mark_page_dirty_in_slot(v->kvm, gpc2->memslot, gpc2->gpa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> }
>
> void kvm_xen_update_runstate(struct kvm_vcpu *v, int state)
ISTR there was a reason why the mark_page_dirty_in_slot() was called
*after* unlocking. Although now I say it, that seems wrong... is that
because the spinlock is only protecting the uHVA→kHVA mapping, while
the memslot/gpa are going to remain valid even after unlock, because
those are protected by sRCU?
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
