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;
Date:   Fri, 12 Mar 2021 09:40:09 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@arm.com, maz@kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com,
        julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
        android-kvm@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, tabba@google.com,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, dbrazdil@google.com, mate.toth-pal@arm.com,
        seanjc@google.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, ardb@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 30/34] KVM: arm64: Add kvm_pgtable_stage2_find_range()
Message-ID: <20210312094009.GC32016@willie-the-truck>
References: <20210310175751.3320106-1-qperret@google.com>
 <20210310175751.3320106-31-qperret@google.com>
 <20210311190406.GB31586@willie-the-truck>
 <YEr83QKZnEd4a6Ba@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YEr83QKZnEd4a6Ba@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 05:32:13AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 11 Mar 2021 at 19:04:07 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 05:57:47PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > +	for (level = pgt->start_level; level < KVM_PGTABLE_MAX_LEVELS; level++) {
> > > +		granule = kvm_granule_size(level);
> > > +		start = ALIGN_DOWN(addr, granule);
> > > +		end = start + granule;
> > > +
> > > +		if (!kvm_level_support_block_mappings(level))
> > > +			continue;
> > > +
> > > +		if (start < range->start || range->end < end)
> > > +			continue;
> > > +
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * Check the presence of existing mappings with incompatible
> > > +		 * permissions within the current block range, and try one level
> > > +		 * deeper if one is found.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		ret = kvm_pgtable_walk(pgt, start, granule, &check_perm_walker);
> > > +		if (ret != -EEXIST)
> > > +			break;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > Can you write this as a:
> > 
> > 	do {
> > 		...
> > 	} while (level < KVM_PGTABLE_MAX_LEVELS && ret == -EEXIST);
> > 
> > loop?
> 
> I tried it but found it a little less pretty -- the pre-assignment of
> level and the increment at the end make it really feel like a for loop
> to me:
> 
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> @@ -1098,26 +1098,23 @@ int kvm_pgtable_stage2_find_range(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr,
>                 return ret;
>         attr &= KVM_PTE_LEAF_S2_COMPAT_MASK;
>  
> -       for (level = pgt->start_level; level < KVM_PGTABLE_MAX_LEVELS; level++) {
> +       ret = -EEXIST;
> +       level = pgt->start_level;
> +       do {
>                 granule = kvm_granule_size(level);
>                 start = ALIGN_DOWN(addr, granule);
>                 end = start + granule;
>  
> -               if (!kvm_level_support_block_mappings(level))
> -                       continue;
> -
> -               if (start < range->start || range->end < end)
> -                       continue;

Urgh, yes, sorry, I hadn't appreciated what a mess it causes for these guys.

Stick with the 'for' loop.

Will