Re: [PATCH 03/16] KVM: arm64: Turn kvm_pgtable_stage2_set_owner into kvm_pgtable_stage2_annotate

[Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:38:17 +0100,
Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday 20 Jul 2021 at 11:21:17 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:09:21 +0100,
> > Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thursday 15 Jul 2021 at 17:31:46 (+0100), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > @@ -815,7 +807,7 @@ int kvm_pgtable_stage2_set_owner(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr, u64 size,
> > > >  		.arg		= &map_data,
> > > >  	};
> > > >  
> > > > -	if (owner_id > KVM_MAX_OWNER_ID)
> > > > +	if (!annotation || (annotation & PTE_VALID))
> > > >  		return -EINVAL;
> > > 
> > > Why do you consider annotation==0 invalid? The assumption so far has
> > > been that the owner_id for the host is 0, so annotating a range with 0s
> > > should be a valid operation -- this will be required when e.g.
> > > transferring ownership of a page back to the host.
> > 
> > How do you then distinguish it from an empty entry that doesn't map to
> > anything at all?
> 
> You don't, but that's beauty of it :)
> 
> The host starts with a PGD full of zeroes, which in terms of ownership
> means that it owns the entire (I)PA space. And it loses ownership of a
> page only when we explicitly annotate it with an owner id != 0.

Right. But this scheme doesn't apply to the guests, does it? Don't we
need something that is non-null to preserve the table refcounting?

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.