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:   Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:09:21 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, will@kernel.org,
        dbrazdil@google.com, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@codeaurora.org>,
        Shanker R Donthineni <sdonthineni@nvidia.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
        kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/16] KVM: arm64: Turn kvm_pgtable_stage2_set_owner into
 kvm_pgtable_stage2_annotate
Message-ID: <YPag0YQHB0nph5ji@google.com>
References: <20210715163159.1480168-1-maz@kernel.org>
 <20210715163159.1480168-4-maz@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210715163159.1480168-4-maz@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thursday 15 Jul 2021 at 17:31:46 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> @@ -815,7 +807,7 @@ int kvm_pgtable_stage2_set_owner(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr, u64 size,
>  		.arg		= &map_data,
>  	};
>  
> -	if (owner_id > KVM_MAX_OWNER_ID)
> +	if (!annotation || (annotation & PTE_VALID))
>  		return -EINVAL;

Why do you consider annotation==0 invalid? The assumption so far has
been that the owner_id for the host is 0, so annotating a range with 0s
should be a valid operation -- this will be required when e.g.
transferring ownership of a page back to the host.

>  
>  	ret = kvm_pgtable_walk(pgt, addr, size, &walker);
> -- 
> 2.30.2
>