On Tue, 2024-02-06 at 20:03 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> +s390 folks (question on kvm_is_error_gpa() for ya)
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > @@ -1398,7 +1414,9 @@ void kvm_gpc_deactivate(struct gfn_to_pfn_cache *gpc);
> > static inline void kvm_gpc_mark_dirty(struct gfn_to_pfn_cache *gpc)
> > {
> > lockdep_assert_held(&gpc->lock);
> > - mark_page_dirty_in_slot(gpc->kvm, gpc->memslot, gpc->gpa >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > +
> > + if (gpc->gpa != KVM_XEN_INVALID_GPA)
>
> KVM_XEN_INVALID_GPA absolutely doesn't belong in common code. Not to mention
> that it will break when Paolo (rightly) moves it to an x86 header.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240131233056.10845-3-pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx
We can use plain INVALID_GPA for that, I think. ISTR the reason we have
a separate KVM_XEN_INVALID_GPA is because that's a userspace API.
...
> But! kvm_is_error_gpa() already exists, and it very, very sneakily
> does a memslot lookup and checks for a valid HVA.
Hm, that doesn't sound as fast as simple comparison. We also can't do
it from kvm_gpc_check(), can we?
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
