Re: [PATCH v12 11/20] KVM: xen: allow shared_info to be mapped by fixed HVA

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux