On 07/02/2024 04:10, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024, Paul Durrant wrote:
@@ -638,20 +637,32 @@ int kvm_xen_hvm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_xen_hvm_attr *data)
}
break;
- case KVM_XEN_ATTR_TYPE_SHARED_INFO: {
+ case KVM_XEN_ATTR_TYPE_SHARED_INFO:
+ case KVM_XEN_ATTR_TYPE_SHARED_INFO_HVA: {
int idx;
mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.xen.xen_lock);
idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
- if (data->u.shared_info.gfn == KVM_XEN_INVALID_GFN) {
- kvm_gpc_deactivate(&kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache);
- r = 0;
+ if (data->type == KVM_XEN_ATTR_TYPE_SHARED_INFO) {
+ if (data->u.shared_info.gfn == KVM_XEN_INVALID_GFN) {
+ kvm_gpc_deactivate(&kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache);
+ r = 0;
+ } else {
+ r = kvm_gpc_activate(&kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache,
+ gfn_to_gpa(data->u.shared_info.gfn),
+ PAGE_SIZE);
+ }
} else {
- r = kvm_gpc_activate(&kvm->arch.xen.shinfo_cache,
- gfn_to_gpa(data->u.shared_info.gfn),
- PAGE_SIZE);
+ if (data->u.shared_info.hva == 0) {
I know I said I don't care about the KVM Xen ABI, but I still think using '0' as
"invalid" is ridiculous.
With the benefit of some sleep, I'm wondering why 0 is a 'ridiculous'
invalid value for a *virtual* address? Surely it's essentially a
numerical cast of the canonically invalid NULL pointer?
Paul
