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 12:20:58 +0100
Message-ID: <87zguh8c4l.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
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
In-Reply-To: <YPanmXfdr9rqnICK@google.com>
References: <20210715163159.1480168-1-maz@kernel.org>
        <20210715163159.1480168-4-maz@kernel.org>
        <YPag0YQHB0nph5ji@google.com>
        <871r7t9tgi.wl-maz@kernel.org>
        <YPanmXfdr9rqnICK@google.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue)
 FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/27.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:38:17 +0100,
Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday 20 Jul 2021 at 11:21:17 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:09:21 +0100,
> > Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > How do you then distinguish it from an empty entry that doesn't map to
> > anything at all?
> 
> You don't, but that's beauty of it :)
> 
> The host starts with a PGD full of zeroes, which in terms of ownership
> means that it owns the entire (I)PA space. And it loses ownership of a
> page only when we explicitly annotate it with an owner id != 0.

Right. But this scheme doesn't apply to the guests, does it? Don't we
need something that is non-null to preserve the table refcounting?

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.