On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 09:12:18AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-11-22 at 16:54 +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -259,13 +258,25 @@ static int __kvm_gpc_refresh(struct gfn_to_pfn_cache *gpc, gpa_t gpa,
> > > ret = -EFAULT;
> > > goto out;
> > > }
> > > +
> > > + hva_change = true;
> > > + } else {
> > > + /*
> > > + * No need to do any re-mapping if the only thing that has
> > > + * changed is the page offset. Just page align it to allow the
> > > + * new offset to be added in.
> >
> > I don't understand how the uhva('s offset) could be changed when both gpa and
> > slot are not changed. Maybe I have no knowledge of xen, but in later
> > patch you said your uhva would never change...
>
> It doesn't change on a normal refresh with kvm_gpc_refresh(), which is
> just for revalidation after memslot changes or MMU invalidation.
>
> But it can change if the gpc is being reinitialized with a new address
> (perhaps because the guest has made another hypercall to set the
> address, etc.)
>
> That new address could happen to be in the *same* page as the previous
In this case, the lower bits of new gpa should be different to gpc->gpa,
so will hit "if (gpc->gpa != gpa ...)" branch.
And I see this comment is deleted in v9, which makes sense to me.
Thanks,
Yilun
> one. In fact the xen_shinfo_test explicitly tests that case, IIRC.
>
> And kvm_gpc_activate() also happens to use __kvm_gpc_refresh()
> internally.
