On Wed, 2023-11-22 at 22:27 +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> 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.
I think that 'if (gpc->gpa != gpa); branch is also gratuitously
refreshing when it doesn't need to; it only needs to refresh if the
*aligned* gpas don't match.
But it was like that already, so I won't heckle Paul any further :)
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
