Re: [PATCH v1] s390/mm: fix virtual-physical address confusion for swiotlb

Nico Boehr
2022-11-07T12:07:16Z

Quoting Christian Borntraeger (2022-11-07 12:21:58)
> Am 07.11.22 um 11:58 schrieb Nico Boehr:
> > swiotlb passes virtual addresses to set_memory_encrypted() and
> > set_memory_decrypted(), but uv_remove_shared() and uv_set_shared()
> > expect physical addresses. This currently works, because virtual
> > and physical addresses are the same.
> >
> > Add virt_to_phys() to resolve the virtual-physical confusion.
> >
> > Reported-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@linux.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@linux.ibm.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
>
> I am asking myself if we should rename addr to vaddr to make this more obvious.
> (Other users of these functions do use vaddr as well).

I had this at some point, but then changed it back because at the time I
thought we don't own the prototype.

However, looking at it again, it looks like that's wrong and we do own
it in arch/s390/include/asm/mem_encrypt.h.

So I think it's a good suggestion and I will pick it up for v2.