Re: [RFC 23/37] KVM: s390: protvirt: Make sure prefix is always protected

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

 



On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:40:45 -0400
Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Add at least a short sentence here?

> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index eddc9508c1b1..17a78774c617 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -3646,6 +3646,15 @@ static int kvm_s390_handle_requests(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		rc = gmap_mprotect_notify(vcpu->arch.gmap,
>  					  kvm_s390_get_prefix(vcpu),
>  					  PAGE_SIZE * 2, PROT_WRITE);
> +		if (!rc && kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm)) {
> +			rc = uv_convert_to_secure(vcpu->arch.gmap,
> +						  kvm_s390_get_prefix(vcpu));
> +			WARN_ON_ONCE(rc && rc != -EEXIST);
> +			rc = uv_convert_to_secure(vcpu->arch.gmap,
> +						  kvm_s390_get_prefix(vcpu) + PAGE_SIZE);
> +			WARN_ON_ONCE(rc && rc != -EEXIST);
> +			rc = 0;

So, what happens if we have an error other than -EEXIST (which
presumably means that we already protected it) here? The page is not
protected, and further accesses will get an error? (Another question:
what can actually go wrong here?)

> +		}
>  		if (rc) {
>  			kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD, vcpu);
>  			return rc;





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux