Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E67C61DA4 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:48:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231646AbjAZQsH (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 11:48:07 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58974 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229851AbjAZQsE (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 11:48:04 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 789D310AB8; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 08:48:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 30QG0E2U022895; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:47:58 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : subject : from : to : cc : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=H9BGEl0RtETnTYX/w1MPim2M0yzG/FokCSxhsZYeRJM=; b=Mfy0tUgUoqrDZqveTcFR1bNs2IYgRbrbB03FWbUAz59uSDUqauXnONxNhAfUvO/Uwfel k+FtrJ3gI5P6j9EaHv2iyOKlRqPfQdJCAnGrSz0qJdKP0GoYfXvJtAgmK1Nb7Vet6E/M vH2fAIHOyLvi5NdOcZE5rPRRG6K6CPG+Gq5g+oMBQutN0lt/BXaibf5fYis+KxEf+RqA DfNGT9dObSSp4FNrxBb+Bxh+DpzcGIg1SF4VMRKSzHaOyX6Zj2+w3/TToJomM1DjgvIb b0PPY3DeDTHpZDw2O+z5keNzjPW7TzE5yQeHjIXNcirwuniUa3BVsUanUioX3272dgHq ow== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3nbvnjs7u5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:47:58 +0000 Received: from m0098409.ppops.net (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 30QGVoCX004738; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:47:57 GMT Received: from ppma05fra.de.ibm.com (6c.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.108]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3nbvnjs7tc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:47:57 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma05fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma05fra.de.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 30QEw0cX032068; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:47:55 GMT Received: from smtprelay06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.230]) by ppma05fra.de.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3n87p64qy3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:47:54 +0000 Received: from smtpav01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.100]) by smtprelay06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 30QGlocr24510768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:47:50 GMT Received: from smtpav01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B0B20043; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:47:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438B820063; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:47:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-7e0de7cc-2d9d-11b2-a85c-de26c016e5ad.ibm.com (unknown [9.171.157.249]) by smtpav01.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:47:44 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <6d870c61856f84c9c48262eecf9001012163edbb.camel@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 08/14] KVM: s390: Move common code of mem_op functions into functions From: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch To: Janosch Frank , Thomas Huth , Christian Borntraeger , Claudio Imbrenda , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Alexander Gordeev Cc: David Hildenbrand , Jonathan Corbet , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Shuah Khan , Sven Schnelle Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 17:47:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20230125212608.1860251-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com> <20230125212608.1860251-9-scgl@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.3 (3.46.3-1.fc37) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 6axKEfGUJckkU8JWwTO_v_qeHDGBBlFa X-Proofpoint-GUID: tWQ6c_HrWz5wNnhZiQ1Xq5oiF-SUuYm6 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.219,Aquarius:18.0.930,Hydra:6.0.562,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2023-01-26_07,2023-01-26_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2212070000 definitions=main-2301260160 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2023-01-26 at 14:02 +0100, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 1/26/23 07:48, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 25/01/2023 22.26, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: > > > The vcpu and vm mem_op ioctl implementations share some functionality= . > > > Move argument checking and buffer allocation into functions and call > > > them from both implementations. > > > This allows code reuse in case of additional future mem_op operations= . > > >=20 > > > Suggested-by: Janosch Frank > > > Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch > > > --- > > > arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------= ---- > > > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > > >=20 > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > > > index e4890e04b210..e0dfaa195949 100644 > > > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > > > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > > > @@ -2764,24 +2764,44 @@ static int kvm_s390_handle_pv(struct kvm *kvm= , struct kvm_pv_cmd *cmd) > > > return r; > > > } > > > =20 > > > -static bool access_key_invalid(u8 access_key) > > > +static int mem_op_validate_common(struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop, u64 s= upported_flags) > > > { > > > - return access_key > 0xf; > > > + if (mop->flags & ~supported_flags || !mop->size) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + if (mop->size > MEM_OP_MAX_SIZE) > > > + return -E2BIG; > > > + if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION) { > > > + if (mop->key > 0xf) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } else { > > > + mop->key =3D 0; > > > + } > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void *mem_op_alloc_buf(struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop) > > > +{ > > > + void *buf; > > > + > > > + if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY) > > > + return NULL; > > > + buf =3D vmalloc(mop->size); > > > + if (!buf) > > > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > > + return buf; > > > } > > > =20 > > > static int kvm_s390_vm_mem_op(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_s390_mem= _op *mop) > > > { > > > void __user *uaddr =3D (void __user *)mop->buf; > > > - u64 supported_flags; > > > void *tmpbuf =3D NULL; > >=20 > > You likely can now remove the "=3D NULL" here, I guess? > >=20 > > > int r, srcu_idx; > > > =20 > > > - supported_flags =3D KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION > > > - | KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY; > > > - if (mop->flags & ~supported_flags || !mop->size) > > > - return -EINVAL; > > > - if (mop->size > MEM_OP_MAX_SIZE) > > > - return -E2BIG; > > > + r =3D mem_op_validate_common(mop, KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION = | > > > + KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY); > > > + if (r) > > > + return r; > > > + > > > /* > > > * This is technically a heuristic only, if the kvm->lock is not > > > * taken, it is not guaranteed that the vm is/remains non-protect= ed. > > > @@ -2793,17 +2813,9 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_mem_op(struct kvm *kvm,= struct kvm_s390_mem_op *mop) > > > */ > > > if (kvm_s390_pv_get_handle(kvm)) > > > return -EINVAL; > > > - if (mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_SKEY_PROTECTION) { > > > - if (access_key_invalid(mop->key)) > > > - return -EINVAL; > > > - } else { > > > - mop->key =3D 0; > > > - } > > > - if (!(mop->flags & KVM_S390_MEMOP_F_CHECK_ONLY)) { > > > - tmpbuf =3D vmalloc(mop->size); > > > - if (!tmpbuf) > > > - return -ENOMEM; > > > - } > > > + tmpbuf =3D mem_op_alloc_buf(mop); > > > + if (IS_ERR(tmpbuf)) > > > + return PTR_ERR(tmpbuf); > > > =20 > > > srcu_idx =3D srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu); > > > =20 > > > @@ -5250,28 +5262,20 @@ static long kvm_s390_vcpu_mem_op(struct kvm_v= cpu *vcpu, > > > { > > > void __user *uaddr =3D (void __user *)mop->buf; > > > void *tmpbuf =3D NULL; > >=20 > > ... and here, too. > >=20 > > But I have to admit that I'm also not sure whether I like the > > mem_op_alloc_buf() part or not (the mem_op_validate_common() part looks= fine > > to me) : mem_op_alloc_buf() is a new function with 11 lines of code, an= d the > > old spots that allocate memory were only 5 lines of code each, so you n= ow > > increased the LoC count and additionally have to fiddly with IS_ERR and > > PTR_ERR which is always a little bit ugly in my eyes ... IMHO I'd rathe= r > > keep the old code here. But that's just my 0.02 =E2=82=AC, if you think= it's nicer > > with mem_op_alloc_buf(), I won't insist on keeping the old code. > >=20 > > Thomas > >=20 >=20 > I've done a PoC that has a **buff argument and combines the check with= =20 > the alloc. I just didn't like that much because it felt like an unspecific memop_do_th= ings function.