* [PATCH 0/2] Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
@ 2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Brazdil @ 2021-07-28 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvmarm
Cc: Marc Zyngier, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei, Suzuki K Poulose,
Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Quentin Perret, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, David Brazdil
Hi, here is an off-by-one bug fix and a very minor improvement for
the range_is_memory function in hyp.
David Brazdil (2):
KVM: arm64: Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
2.32.0.432.gabb21c7263-goog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 0/2] Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
@ 2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Brazdil @ 2021-07-28 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvmarm
Cc: Marc Zyngier, linux-kernel, Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon,
linux-arm-kernel
Hi, here is an off-by-one bug fix and a very minor improvement for
the range_is_memory function in hyp.
David Brazdil (2):
KVM: arm64: Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
2.32.0.432.gabb21c7263-goog
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
(?)
@ 2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Brazdil @ 2021-07-28 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvmarm
Cc: Marc Zyngier, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei, Suzuki K Poulose,
Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Quentin Perret, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, David Brazdil
Hyp checks whether an address range only covers RAM by checking the
start/endpoints against a list of memblock_region structs. However,
the endpoint here is exclusive but internally is treated as inclusive.
Fix the off-by-one error that caused valid address ranges to be
rejected.
Cc: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Fixes: 90134ac9cabb6 ("KVM: arm64: Protect the .hyp sections from the host")
Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
index d938ce95d3bd..a6ce991b1467 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
{
struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
- if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end, &r2))
+ if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
return false;
if (r1.start != r2.start)
return false;
--
2.32.0.432.gabb21c7263-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
@ 2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Brazdil @ 2021-07-28 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvmarm
Cc: Marc Zyngier, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei, Suzuki K Poulose,
Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Quentin Perret, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, David Brazdil
Hyp checks whether an address range only covers RAM by checking the
start/endpoints against a list of memblock_region structs. However,
the endpoint here is exclusive but internally is treated as inclusive.
Fix the off-by-one error that caused valid address ranges to be
rejected.
Cc: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Fixes: 90134ac9cabb6 ("KVM: arm64: Protect the .hyp sections from the host")
Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
index d938ce95d3bd..a6ce991b1467 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
{
struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
- if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end, &r2))
+ if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
return false;
if (r1.start != r2.start)
return false;
--
2.32.0.432.gabb21c7263-goog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
@ 2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Brazdil @ 2021-07-28 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvmarm
Cc: Marc Zyngier, linux-kernel, Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon,
linux-arm-kernel
Hyp checks whether an address range only covers RAM by checking the
start/endpoints against a list of memblock_region structs. However,
the endpoint here is exclusive but internally is treated as inclusive.
Fix the off-by-one error that caused valid address ranges to be
rejected.
Cc: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Fixes: 90134ac9cabb6 ("KVM: arm64: Protect the .hyp sections from the host")
Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
index d938ce95d3bd..a6ce991b1467 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
{
struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
- if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end, &r2))
+ if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
return false;
if (r1.start != r2.start)
return false;
--
2.32.0.432.gabb21c7263-goog
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
(?)
@ 2021-07-29 16:52 ` Quentin Perret
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Quentin Perret @ 2021-07-29 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Brazdil
Cc: kvmarm, Marc Zyngier, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei,
Suzuki K Poulose, Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Wednesday 28 Jul 2021 at 15:32:31 (+0000), David Brazdil wrote:
> Hyp checks whether an address range only covers RAM by checking the
> start/endpoints against a list of memblock_region structs. However,
> the endpoint here is exclusive but internally is treated as inclusive.
> Fix the off-by-one error that caused valid address ranges to be
> rejected.
>
> Cc: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
> Fixes: 90134ac9cabb6 ("KVM: arm64: Protect the .hyp sections from the host")
> Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> index d938ce95d3bd..a6ce991b1467 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
> {
> struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
>
> - if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end, &r2))
> + if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
> return false;
> if (r1.start != r2.start)
> return false;
Looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Thanks,
Quentin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
@ 2021-07-29 16:52 ` Quentin Perret
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Quentin Perret @ 2021-07-29 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Brazdil
Cc: kvmarm, Marc Zyngier, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei,
Suzuki K Poulose, Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Wednesday 28 Jul 2021 at 15:32:31 (+0000), David Brazdil wrote:
> Hyp checks whether an address range only covers RAM by checking the
> start/endpoints against a list of memblock_region structs. However,
> the endpoint here is exclusive but internally is treated as inclusive.
> Fix the off-by-one error that caused valid address ranges to be
> rejected.
>
> Cc: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
> Fixes: 90134ac9cabb6 ("KVM: arm64: Protect the .hyp sections from the host")
> Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> index d938ce95d3bd..a6ce991b1467 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
> {
> struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
>
> - if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end, &r2))
> + if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
> return false;
> if (r1.start != r2.start)
> return false;
Looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Thanks,
Quentin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
@ 2021-07-29 16:52 ` Quentin Perret
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Quentin Perret @ 2021-07-29 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Brazdil
Cc: Will Deacon, Marc Zyngier, linux-kernel, Catalin Marinas, kvmarm,
linux-arm-kernel
On Wednesday 28 Jul 2021 at 15:32:31 (+0000), David Brazdil wrote:
> Hyp checks whether an address range only covers RAM by checking the
> start/endpoints against a list of memblock_region structs. However,
> the endpoint here is exclusive but internally is treated as inclusive.
> Fix the off-by-one error that caused valid address ranges to be
> rejected.
>
> Cc: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
> Fixes: 90134ac9cabb6 ("KVM: arm64: Protect the .hyp sections from the host")
> Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> index d938ce95d3bd..a6ce991b1467 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
> {
> struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
>
> - if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end, &r2))
> + if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
> return false;
> if (r1.start != r2.start)
> return false;
Looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Thanks,
Quentin
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
(?)
@ 2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Brazdil @ 2021-07-28 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvmarm
Cc: Marc Zyngier, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei, Suzuki K Poulose,
Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Quentin Perret, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, David Brazdil
Currently range_is_memory finds the corresponding struct memblock_region
for both the lower and upper bounds of the given address range with two
rounds of binary search, and then checks that the two memblocks are the
same. Simplify this by only doing binary search on the lower bound and
then checking that the upper bound is in the same memblock.
Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
index a6ce991b1467..37d73af69634 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
@@ -189,13 +189,18 @@ static bool find_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
return false;
}
+static bool is_in_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
+{
+ return range->start <= addr && addr < range->end;
+}
+
static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
{
- struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
+ struct kvm_mem_range r;
- if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
+ if (!find_mem_range(start, &r))
return false;
- if (r1.start != r2.start)
+ if (!is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r))
return false;
return true;
--
2.32.0.432.gabb21c7263-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
@ 2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Brazdil @ 2021-07-28 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvmarm
Cc: Marc Zyngier, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei, Suzuki K Poulose,
Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Quentin Perret, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, David Brazdil
Currently range_is_memory finds the corresponding struct memblock_region
for both the lower and upper bounds of the given address range with two
rounds of binary search, and then checks that the two memblocks are the
same. Simplify this by only doing binary search on the lower bound and
then checking that the upper bound is in the same memblock.
Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
index a6ce991b1467..37d73af69634 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
@@ -189,13 +189,18 @@ static bool find_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
return false;
}
+static bool is_in_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
+{
+ return range->start <= addr && addr < range->end;
+}
+
static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
{
- struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
+ struct kvm_mem_range r;
- if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
+ if (!find_mem_range(start, &r))
return false;
- if (r1.start != r2.start)
+ if (!is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r))
return false;
return true;
--
2.32.0.432.gabb21c7263-goog
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
@ 2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: David Brazdil @ 2021-07-28 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvmarm
Cc: Marc Zyngier, linux-kernel, Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon,
linux-arm-kernel
Currently range_is_memory finds the corresponding struct memblock_region
for both the lower and upper bounds of the given address range with two
rounds of binary search, and then checks that the two memblocks are the
same. Simplify this by only doing binary search on the lower bound and
then checking that the upper bound is in the same memblock.
Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
index a6ce991b1467..37d73af69634 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
@@ -189,13 +189,18 @@ static bool find_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
return false;
}
+static bool is_in_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
+{
+ return range->start <= addr && addr < range->end;
+}
+
static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
{
- struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
+ struct kvm_mem_range r;
- if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
+ if (!find_mem_range(start, &r))
return false;
- if (r1.start != r2.start)
+ if (!is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r))
return false;
return true;
--
2.32.0.432.gabb21c7263-goog
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
(?)
@ 2021-07-29 17:00 ` Quentin Perret
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Quentin Perret @ 2021-07-29 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Brazdil
Cc: kvmarm, Marc Zyngier, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei,
Suzuki K Poulose, Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Wednesday 28 Jul 2021 at 15:32:32 (+0000), David Brazdil wrote:
> Currently range_is_memory finds the corresponding struct memblock_region
> for both the lower and upper bounds of the given address range with two
> rounds of binary search, and then checks that the two memblocks are the
> same. Simplify this by only doing binary search on the lower bound and
> then checking that the upper bound is in the same memblock.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> index a6ce991b1467..37d73af69634 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> @@ -189,13 +189,18 @@ static bool find_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static bool is_in_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
> +{
Nit: addr@ could be u64 for consistency -- struct kvm_mem_range holds
IPAs in general.
> + return range->start <= addr && addr < range->end;
> +}
> +
> static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
> {
> - struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
> + struct kvm_mem_range r;
>
> - if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
> + if (!find_mem_range(start, &r))
> return false;
> - if (r1.start != r2.start)
> + if (!is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r))
> return false;
>
> return true;
Nit: maybe drop the second if and simplify to:
return is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r);
With that:
Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Thanks,
Quentin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
@ 2021-07-29 17:00 ` Quentin Perret
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Quentin Perret @ 2021-07-29 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Brazdil
Cc: kvmarm, Marc Zyngier, James Morse, Alexandru Elisei,
Suzuki K Poulose, Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Wednesday 28 Jul 2021 at 15:32:32 (+0000), David Brazdil wrote:
> Currently range_is_memory finds the corresponding struct memblock_region
> for both the lower and upper bounds of the given address range with two
> rounds of binary search, and then checks that the two memblocks are the
> same. Simplify this by only doing binary search on the lower bound and
> then checking that the upper bound is in the same memblock.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> index a6ce991b1467..37d73af69634 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> @@ -189,13 +189,18 @@ static bool find_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static bool is_in_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
> +{
Nit: addr@ could be u64 for consistency -- struct kvm_mem_range holds
IPAs in general.
> + return range->start <= addr && addr < range->end;
> +}
> +
> static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
> {
> - struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
> + struct kvm_mem_range r;
>
> - if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
> + if (!find_mem_range(start, &r))
> return false;
> - if (r1.start != r2.start)
> + if (!is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r))
> return false;
>
> return true;
Nit: maybe drop the second if and simplify to:
return is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r);
With that:
Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Thanks,
Quentin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
@ 2021-07-29 17:00 ` Quentin Perret
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Quentin Perret @ 2021-07-29 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Brazdil
Cc: Will Deacon, Marc Zyngier, linux-kernel, Catalin Marinas, kvmarm,
linux-arm-kernel
On Wednesday 28 Jul 2021 at 15:32:32 (+0000), David Brazdil wrote:
> Currently range_is_memory finds the corresponding struct memblock_region
> for both the lower and upper bounds of the given address range with two
> rounds of binary search, and then checks that the two memblocks are the
> same. Simplify this by only doing binary search on the lower bound and
> then checking that the upper bound is in the same memblock.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> index a6ce991b1467..37d73af69634 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> @@ -189,13 +189,18 @@ static bool find_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static bool is_in_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
> +{
Nit: addr@ could be u64 for consistency -- struct kvm_mem_range holds
IPAs in general.
> + return range->start <= addr && addr < range->end;
> +}
> +
> static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
> {
> - struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
> + struct kvm_mem_range r;
>
> - if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
> + if (!find_mem_range(start, &r))
> return false;
> - if (r1.start != r2.start)
> + if (!is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r))
> return false;
>
> return true;
Nit: maybe drop the second if and simplify to:
return is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r);
With that:
Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Thanks,
Quentin
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: (subset) [PATCH 0/2] Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
2021-07-28 15:32 ` David Brazdil
(?)
@ 2021-08-20 11:05 ` Marc Zyngier
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2021-08-20 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvmarm, David Brazdil
Cc: linux-kernel, Will Deacon, Quentin Perret, Alexandru Elisei,
linux-arm-kernel, James Morse, Suzuki K Poulose, Catalin Marinas
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 15:32:30 +0000, David Brazdil wrote:
> the range_is_memory function in hyp.
>
> David Brazdil (2):
> KVM: arm64: Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
> KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
>
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Applied to kvm-arm64/mmu/el2-tracking, thanks!
[2/2] KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
commit: 14ecf075fe5be01860927fdf3aa11d7b18023ab2
Cheers,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: (subset) [PATCH 0/2] Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
@ 2021-08-20 11:05 ` Marc Zyngier
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2021-08-20 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvmarm, David Brazdil
Cc: linux-kernel, Will Deacon, Quentin Perret, Alexandru Elisei,
linux-arm-kernel, James Morse, Suzuki K Poulose, Catalin Marinas
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 15:32:30 +0000, David Brazdil wrote:
> the range_is_memory function in hyp.
>
> David Brazdil (2):
> KVM: arm64: Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
> KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
>
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Applied to kvm-arm64/mmu/el2-tracking, thanks!
[2/2] KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
commit: 14ecf075fe5be01860927fdf3aa11d7b18023ab2
Cheers,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: (subset) [PATCH 0/2] Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
@ 2021-08-20 11:05 ` Marc Zyngier
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2021-08-20 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvmarm, David Brazdil
Cc: Will Deacon, linux-kernel, Catalin Marinas, linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 15:32:30 +0000, David Brazdil wrote:
> the range_is_memory function in hyp.
>
> David Brazdil (2):
> KVM: arm64: Fix off-by-one in range_is_memory
> KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
>
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Applied to kvm-arm64/mmu/el2-tracking, thanks!
[2/2] KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory
commit: 14ecf075fe5be01860927fdf3aa11d7b18023ab2
Cheers,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread