Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <7e2767c2-d772-a485-ce8c-ed5d4da06b3f@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:53:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/23] KVM: MMU: remove valid from extended role
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        dmatlack@google.com, vkuznets@redhat.com
References: <20220204115718.14934-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <20220204115718.14934-4-pbonzini@redhat.com> <YgRGQ1HiB2jSTr5M@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <YgRGQ1HiB2jSTr5M@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/9/22 23:54, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Nope, it's not guaranteed to be non-zero:
> 
> static int role_regs_to_root_level(struct kvm_mmu_role_regs *regs)
> {
> 	if (!____is_cr0_pg(regs))
> 		return 0; <=============================================
> 	else if (____is_efer_lma(regs))
> 		return ____is_cr4_la57(regs) ? PT64_ROOT_5LEVEL :
> 					       PT64_ROOT_4LEVEL;
> 	else if (____is_cr4_pae(regs))
> 		return PT32E_ROOT_LEVEL;
> 	else
> 		return PT32_ROOT_LEVEL;
> }
> 

Yes, see my reply to David.  At the end of the series the assumption is 
correct:

- level is always nonzero in mmu_role

- one of level or direct (which is !CR0.PG) is always nonzero in cpu_role

So the patch can be kept but it has to be moved much later.

Paolo