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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Protect rmaps independently with
 SRCU
To:     Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
        Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>,
        Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
References: <20210506184241.618958-1-bgardon@google.com>
 <20210506184241.618958-8-bgardon@google.com>
 <e2e73709-f247-1a60-4835-f3fad37ab736@redhat.com>
 <YJlxQe1AXljq5yhQ@google.com>
 <a13b6960-3628-2899-5fbf-0765f97aa9eb@redhat.com>
 <YJl7V1arDXyC6i5P@google.com>
 <CANgfPd9LDnEs1EoEu2tXZVvLGkFhNSByJ-oLCkqb02xxmgkifQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <9f8b39f9-58ce-c795-ae76-b0d7bb823b13@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 18:45:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANgfPd9LDnEs1EoEu2tXZVvLGkFhNSByJ-oLCkqb02xxmgkifQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/05/21 18:22, Ben Gardon wrote:
>> Yes, and I'm arguing that annotating the rmaps as __rcu is wrong because they
>> themselves are not protected by SRCU.  The memslot that contains the rmaps is
>> protected by SRCU, and because of that asserting SRCU is held for read will hold
>> true.  But, if the memslot code were changed to use a different protection scheme,
>> e.g. a rwlock for argument's sake, then the SRCU assertion would fail even though
>> the rmap logic itself didn't change.
>
> I'm inclined to agree with Sean that the extra RCU annotations are
> probably unnecessary since we're already doing the srcu dereference
> for all the slots. I'll move all these RCU annotations to their own
> patch and put it at the end of the series when I send v4.
> 

Fair enough, you can even remove them then.

Paolo