Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 23 Jan 2019 12:50:18 -0500
From:   Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
To:     KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@amazon.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/13] KVM: Introduce a new guest mapping API
Message-ID: <20190123175014.GK19289@Konrads-MacBook-Pro.local>
References: <1547026933-31226-1-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de>
 <1547026933-31226-5-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1547026933-31226-5-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> +	if (dirty)
> +		kvm_release_pfn_dirty(map->pfn);
> +	else
> +		kvm_release_pfn_clean(map->pfn);
> +	map->hva = NULL;

I keep on having this gnawing feeling that we MUST set map->page to
NULL.

That is I can see how it is not needed if you are using 'map' and
'unmap' together - for that we are good. But what I am worried is that
some one unmaps it .. and instead of checking map->hva they end up
checking map->page and think the page is mapped.

Would you be OK adding that extra statement just as a fail-safe
mechanism in case someones misues the APIs?