On Wed, 2024-07-10 at 11:46 +0100, Patrick Roy wrote: > On Wed, 2024-07-10 at 11:20 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > In that case, wouldn't that mean the explicit checks on gpc->is_private > > matching kvm_mem_is_private() would be redundant and you can remove > > them because you can trust that gpc->valid would be cleared? > > > > Right, yes, it would indeed mean that. I'll double-check my assumption > about the whole invalidation thing and adjust the code for the next > iteration! I was going to suggest that you take the check you'd added to kvm_gpc_check() and move it down below the ->valid check, and turn it into a BUG_ON() to check that assertion. You *might* get false positives with that though, if the result of kvm_mem_is_private() becomes true before the flush actually *happens*?
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
