Message-ID: <871f7c8b-0f54-7e9c-4253-b3878b010bbf@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2023 19:13:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/102.0 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 01/27] drm/i915/gvt: Verify pfn is "valid"
 before dereferencing "struct page"
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@intel.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>,
        "Wang, Zhi A" <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>
Cc:     "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
        "intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org" 
        <intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>
References: <20230311002258.852397-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20230311002258.852397-2-seanjc@google.com>
 <DS0PR11MB63733BCF5AEBBF5F38FD2C01DCB99@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>
Organization: Intel Technology Poland sp. z o.o. - ul. Slowackiego 173, 80-298
 Gdansk - KRS 101882 - NIP 957-07-52-316
In-Reply-To: <DS0PR11MB63733BCF5AEBBF5F38FD2C01DCB99@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 13.03.2023 16:37, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 8:23 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c
>> index 4ec85308379a..58b9b316ae46 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c
>> @@ -1183,6 +1183,10 @@ static int is_2MB_gtt_possible(struct intel_vgpu
>> *vgpu,
>>   	pfn = gfn_to_pfn(vgpu->vfio_device.kvm, ops->get_pfn(entry));
>>   	if (is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn))
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
> 
> Merge the two errors in one "if" to have less LOC?
> i.e.
> if (is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn) || !pfn_valid(pfn))
>      return -EINVAL;

you can just replace "if (is_error_noslot_pfn(pfn))" with "if 
(!pfn_valid(pfn))", it covers both cases.

Regards
Andrzej