lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 16/19] KVM: Ensure validity of memslot with respect to kvm_get_dirty_log()
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 01:19:30PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:40:38PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > +int kvm_get_dirty_log(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_dirty_log *log,
> > + int *is_dirty, struct kvm_memory_slot **memslot)
> > {
> > struct kvm_memslots *slots;
> > - struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot;
> > int i, as_id, id;
> > unsigned long n;
> > unsigned long any = 0;
> >
> > + *memslot = NULL;
> > + *is_dirty = 0;
> > +
> > as_id = log->slot >> 16;
> > id = (u16)log->slot;
> > if (as_id >= KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM || id >= KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > slots = __kvm_memslots(kvm, as_id);
> > - memslot = id_to_memslot(slots, id);
> > - if (!memslot->dirty_bitmap)
> > + *memslot = id_to_memslot(slots, id);
> > + if (!(*memslot)->dirty_bitmap)
> > return -ENOENT;
> >
> > - n = kvm_dirty_bitmap_bytes(memslot);
> > + kvm_arch_sync_dirty_log(kvm, *memslot);
>
> Should this line belong to previous patch?

No.

The previous patch, "KVM: Provide common implementation for generic dirty
log functions", is consolidating the implementation of dirty log functions
for architectures with CONFIG_KVM_GENERIC_DIRTYLOG_READ_PROTECT=y.

This code is being moved from s390's kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log(), as s390
doesn't select KVM_GENERIC_DIRTYLOG_READ_PROTECT. It's functionally a nop
as kvm_arch_sync_dirty_log() is empty for PowerPC, the only other arch that
doesn't select KVM_GENERIC_DIRTYLOG_READ_PROTECT.

Arguably, the call to kvm_arch_sync_dirty_log() should be moved in a
separate prep patch. It can't be a follow-on patch as that would swap the
ordering of kvm_arch_sync_dirty_log() and kvm_dirty_bitmap_bytes(), etc...

My reasoning for not splitting it to a separate patch is that prior to this
patch, the common code and arch specific code are doing separate memslot
lookups via id_to_memslot(), i.e. moving the kvm_arch_sync_dirty_log() call
would operate on a "different" memslot. It can't actually be a different
memslot because slots_lock is held, it just felt weird.

All that being said, I don't have a strong opinion on moving the call to
kvm_arch_sync_dirty_log() in a separate patch; IIRC, I vascillated between
the two options when writing the code. If anyone wants it to be a separate
patch I'll happily split it out.

>
> > +
> > + n = kvm_dirty_bitmap_bytes(*memslot);
> >
> > for (i = 0; !any && i < n/sizeof(long); ++i)
> > - any = memslot->dirty_bitmap[i];
> > + any = (*memslot)->dirty_bitmap[i];
> >
> > - if (copy_to_user(log->dirty_bitmap, memslot->dirty_bitmap, n))
> > + if (copy_to_user(log->dirty_bitmap, (*memslot)->dirty_bitmap, n))
> > return -EFAULT;
> >
> > if (any)
> > --
> > 2.24.1
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-14 19:26    [W:0.046 / U:20.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site