LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
	frankja@linux.ibm.com, Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	david@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: s390: gaccess: Refactor access address range check
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 12:08:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210818120815.6e048149@p-imbrenda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210816150718.3063877-3-scgl@linux.ibm.com>

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 17:07:17 +0200
Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> Do not round down the first address to the page boundary, just translate
> it normally, which gives the value we care about in the first place.
> Given this, translating a single address is just the special case of
> translating a range spanning a single page.
> 
> Make the output optional, so the function can be used to just check a
> range.

I like the idea, but see a few nits below

> 
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
> index df83de0843de..e5a19d8b30e2 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
> @@ -794,35 +794,45 @@ static int low_address_protection_enabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  	return 1;
>  }
>  
> -static int guest_page_range(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ga, u8 ar,
> -			    unsigned long *pages, unsigned long nr_pages,
> -			    const union asce asce, enum gacc_mode mode)
> +/* Stores the gpas for each page in a real/virtual range into @gpas
> + * Modifies the 'struct kvm_s390_pgm_info pgm' member of @vcpu in the same
> + * way read_guest/write_guest do, the meaning of the return value is likewise

this comment is a bit confusing; why telling us to look what a
different function is doing?

either don't mention this at all (since it's more or less the expected
behaviour), or explain in full what's going on

> + * the same.
> + * If @gpas is NULL only the checks are performed.
> + */
> +static int guest_range_to_gpas(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ga, u8 ar,
> +			       unsigned long *gpas, unsigned long len,
> +			       const union asce asce, enum gacc_mode mode)
>  {
>  	psw_t *psw = &vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw;
> +	unsigned long gpa;
> +	unsigned int seg;
> +	unsigned int offset = offset_in_page(ga);
>  	int lap_enabled, rc = 0;
>  	enum prot_type prot;
>  
>  	lap_enabled = low_address_protection_enabled(vcpu, asce);
> -	while (nr_pages) {
> +	while ((seg = min(PAGE_SIZE - offset, len)) != 0) {

I'm not terribly fond of assignments-as-values; moreover offset is used
only once.

why not something like:

	seg = min(PAGE_SIZE - offset, len);
	while (seg) {

		...

		seg = min(PAGE_SIZE, len);
	}

or maybe even:

	seg = min(PAGE_SIZE - offset, len);
	for (; seg; seg = min(PAGE_SIZE, len)) {

(although the one with the while is perhaps more readable)

>  		ga = kvm_s390_logical_to_effective(vcpu, ga);
>  		if (mode == GACC_STORE && lap_enabled && is_low_address(ga))
>  			return trans_exc(vcpu, PGM_PROTECTION, ga, ar, mode,
>  					 PROT_TYPE_LA);
> -		ga &= PAGE_MASK;
>  		if (psw_bits(*psw).dat) {
> -			rc = guest_translate(vcpu, ga, pages, asce, mode, &prot);
> +			rc = guest_translate(vcpu, ga, &gpa, asce, mode, &prot);
>  			if (rc < 0)
>  				return rc;
>  		} else {
> -			*pages = kvm_s390_real_to_abs(vcpu, ga);
> -			if (kvm_is_error_gpa(vcpu->kvm, *pages))
> +			gpa = kvm_s390_real_to_abs(vcpu, ga);
> +			if (kvm_is_error_gpa(vcpu->kvm, gpa))
>  				rc = PGM_ADDRESSING;
>  		}
>  		if (rc)
>  			return trans_exc(vcpu, rc, ga, ar, mode, prot);
> -		ga += PAGE_SIZE;
> -		pages++;
> -		nr_pages--;
> +		if (gpas)
> +			*gpas++ = gpa;
> +		offset = 0;
> +		ga += seg;
> +		len -= seg;
>  	}
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -845,10 +855,10 @@ int access_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ga, u8 ar, void *data,
>  		 unsigned long len, enum gacc_mode mode)
>  {
>  	psw_t *psw = &vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw;
> -	unsigned long nr_pages, gpa, idx;
> +	unsigned long nr_pages, idx;
>  	unsigned int seg;
> -	unsigned long pages_array[2];
> -	unsigned long *pages;
> +	unsigned long gpa_array[2];
> +	unsigned long *gpas;

reverse Christmas tree?

also, since you're touching this: have you checked if a different size
for the array would bring any benefit?
2 seems a little too small, but I have no idea if anything bigger would
bring any advantages.

>  	int need_ipte_lock;
>  	union asce asce;
>  	int rc;
> @@ -860,27 +870,25 @@ int access_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ga, u8 ar, void *data,
>  	if (rc)
>  		return rc;
>  	nr_pages = (((ga & ~PAGE_MASK) + len - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT) + 1;
> -	pages = pages_array;
> -	if (nr_pages > ARRAY_SIZE(pages_array))
> -		pages = vmalloc(array_size(nr_pages, sizeof(unsigned long)));
> -	if (!pages)
> +	gpas = gpa_array;
> +	if (nr_pages > ARRAY_SIZE(gpa_array))
> +		gpas = vmalloc(array_size(nr_pages, sizeof(unsigned long)));
> +	if (!gpas)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	need_ipte_lock = psw_bits(*psw).dat && !asce.r;
>  	if (need_ipte_lock)
>  		ipte_lock(vcpu);
> -	rc = guest_page_range(vcpu, ga, ar, pages, nr_pages, asce, mode);
> +	rc = guest_range_to_gpas(vcpu, ga, ar, gpas, len, asce, mode);
>  	for (idx = 0; idx < nr_pages && !rc; idx++) {
> -		gpa = pages[idx] + offset_in_page(ga);
> -		seg = min(PAGE_SIZE - offset_in_page(gpa), len);
> -		rc = access_guest_frame(vcpu->kvm, mode, gpa, data, seg);
> +		seg = min(PAGE_SIZE - offset_in_page(gpas[idx]), len);
> +		rc = access_guest_frame(vcpu->kvm, mode, gpas[idx], data, seg);
>  		len -= seg;
> -		ga += seg;
>  		data += seg;
>  	}
>  	if (need_ipte_lock)
>  		ipte_unlock(vcpu);
> -	if (nr_pages > ARRAY_SIZE(pages_array))
> -		vfree(pages);
> +	if (nr_pages > ARRAY_SIZE(gpa_array))
> +		vfree(gpas);
>  	return rc;
>  }
>  
> @@ -914,8 +922,6 @@ int access_guest_real(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gra,
>  int guest_translate_address(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gva, u8 ar,
>  			    unsigned long *gpa, enum gacc_mode mode)
>  {
> -	psw_t *psw = &vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw;
> -	enum prot_type prot;
>  	union asce asce;
>  	int rc;
>  
> @@ -923,23 +929,7 @@ int guest_translate_address(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gva, u8 ar,
>  	rc = get_vcpu_asce(vcpu, &asce, gva, ar, mode);
>  	if (rc)
>  		return rc;
> -	if (is_low_address(gva) && low_address_protection_enabled(vcpu, asce)) {
> -		if (mode == GACC_STORE)
> -			return trans_exc(vcpu, PGM_PROTECTION, gva, 0,
> -					 mode, PROT_TYPE_LA);
> -	}
> -
> -	if (psw_bits(*psw).dat && !asce.r) {	/* Use DAT? */
> -		rc = guest_translate(vcpu, gva, gpa, asce, mode, &prot);
> -		if (rc > 0)
> -			return trans_exc(vcpu, rc, gva, 0, mode, prot);
> -	} else {
> -		*gpa = kvm_s390_real_to_abs(vcpu, gva);
> -		if (kvm_is_error_gpa(vcpu->kvm, *gpa))
> -			return trans_exc(vcpu, rc, gva, PGM_ADDRESSING, mode, 0);
> -	}
> -
> -	return rc;
> +	return guest_range_to_gpas(vcpu, gva, ar, gpa, 1, asce, mode);
>  }
>  
>  /**
> @@ -948,17 +938,14 @@ int guest_translate_address(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gva, u8 ar,
>  int check_gva_range(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gva, u8 ar,
>  		    unsigned long length, enum gacc_mode mode)
>  {
> -	unsigned long gpa;
> -	unsigned long currlen;
> +	union asce asce;
>  	int rc = 0;
>  
> +	rc = get_vcpu_asce(vcpu, &asce, gva, ar, mode);
> +	if (rc)
> +		return rc;
>  	ipte_lock(vcpu);
> -	while (length > 0 && !rc) {
> -		currlen = min(length, PAGE_SIZE - (gva % PAGE_SIZE));
> -		rc = guest_translate_address(vcpu, gva, ar, &gpa, mode);
> -		gva += currlen;
> -		length -= currlen;
> -	}
> +	rc = guest_range_to_gpas(vcpu, gva, ar, NULL, length, asce, mode);
>  	ipte_unlock(vcpu);
>  
>  	return rc;


  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-18 10:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20210816150718.3063877-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
2021-08-16 15:07 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: s390: gaccess: Cleanup access to guest frames Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2021-08-18  7:46   ` Janosch Frank
2021-08-18  7:54   ` David Hildenbrand
2021-08-18  8:06     ` Janosch Frank
2021-08-18  8:44       ` David Hildenbrand
2021-08-18  8:48         ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2021-08-19 13:53       ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2021-08-19 14:11         ` Janosch Frank
2021-08-18  9:00     ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2021-08-16 15:07 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: s390: gaccess: Refactor access address range check Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2021-08-18 10:08   ` Claudio Imbrenda [this message]
2021-08-19 12:39     ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210818120815.6e048149@p-imbrenda \
    --to=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=scgl@linux.ibm.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: s390: gaccess: Refactor access address range check' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).