Re: [PATCH v3 07/15] KVM: arm64: Introduce kvm_share_hyp()

[Quentin Perret]

On Thursday 09 Dec 2021 at 11:13:10 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 05:04:01PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > The create_hyp_mappings() function can currently be called at any point
> > in time. However, its behaviour in protected mode changes widely
> > depending on when it is being called. Prior to KVM init, it is used to
> > create the temporary page-table used to bring-up the hypervisor, and
> > later on it is transparently turned into a 'share' hypercall when the
> > kernel has lost control over the hypervisor stage-1. In order to prepare
> > the ground for also unsharing pages with the hypervisor during guest
> > teardown, introduce a kvm_share_hyp() function to make it clear in which
> > places a share hypercall should be expected, as we will soon need a
> > matching unshare hypercall in all those places.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h |  1 +
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c             |  4 ++--
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/fpsimd.c          |  2 +-
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c             | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c           |  2 +-
> >  5 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> [...]
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > index f8f1096a297f..fd868fb9d922 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > @@ -299,6 +299,25 @@ static int pkvm_share_hyp(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +int kvm_share_hyp(void *from, void *to)
> > +{
> > +	if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode())
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The share hcall maps things in the 'fixed-offset' region of the hyp
> > +	 * VA space, so we can only share physically contiguous data-structures
> > +	 * for now.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (is_vmalloc_addr(from) || is_vmalloc_addr(to))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> 
> If we're adding these sanity checks, perhaps is_vmalloc_or_module_addr()
> would be worth using instead?

Ack, I'll fix that up.