Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200925212302.3979661-1-bgardon@google.com> <20200925212302.3979661-2-bgardon@google.com>
 <20200930045508.GA29405@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200930045508.GA29405@linux.intel.com>
From:   Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 16:03:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CANgfPd9uUFHK8q29YtfQPrtj1hAHWLZAf6SCeVp6YUeHR-z6FA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/22] kvm: mmu: Separate making SPTEs from set_spte
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Cannon Matthews <cannonmatthews@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
        Peter Feiner <pfeiner@google.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 9:55 PM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 02:22:41PM -0700, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > +static int set_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *sptep,
> > +                 unsigned int pte_access, int level,
> > +                 gfn_t gfn, kvm_pfn_t pfn, bool speculative,
> > +                 bool can_unsync, bool host_writable)
> > +{
> > +     u64 spte = 0;
> > +     struct kvm_mmu_page *sp;
> > +     int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +     if (set_mmio_spte(vcpu, sptep, gfn, pfn, pte_access))
> > +             return 0;
> > +
> > +     sp = sptep_to_sp(sptep);
> > +
> > +     spte = make_spte(vcpu, pte_access, level, gfn, pfn, *sptep, speculative,
> > +                      can_unsync, host_writable, sp_ad_disabled(sp), &ret);
> > +     if (!spte)
> > +             return 0;
>
> This is an impossible condition.  Well, maybe it's theoretically possible
> if page track is active, with EPT exec-only support (shadow_present_mask is
> zero), and pfn==0.  But in that case, returning early is wrong.
>
> Rather than return the spte, what about returning 'ret', passing 'new_spte'
> as a u64 *, and dropping the bail early path?  That would also eliminate
> the minor wart of make_spte() relying on the caller to initialize 'ret'.

I agree that would make this much cleaner.

>
> > +
> > +     if (spte & PT_WRITABLE_MASK)
> > +             kvm_vcpu_mark_page_dirty(vcpu, gfn);
> > +
> >       if (mmu_spte_update(sptep, spte))
> >               ret |= SET_SPTE_NEED_REMOTE_TLB_FLUSH;
> >       return ret;
> > --
> > 2.28.0.709.gb0816b6eb0-goog
> >