From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3953633CA; Mon, 5 Aug 2024 08:46:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722847603; cv=none; b=GDxqtaQJ7WdJo9SOoj4oEqsGVvWUjNtfPDVIzzr+DTNf0vq1rsZnx2gQTfT/8y0hK2Lujb1R62Q9RAzcqNXsWz0Y85qOCcRsFZholaiiIdzRq4ROfdhYVrE+lL3M+Kciex9+qe+dwYF2v83l+EywBw+fHxXVK9TnJ2HjeMmIvTA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722847603; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XXh3b2lZABj/jp80lL7QrhLvmjDd1NOLcrEenB+o3ac=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=QyelT3IkR75u2HV0K+Ju8QKCbXQ5QK58rAzEKYFgBWKslylQsr+VWLGG72lkKIOCTMeIbBf4iHO+6XVA+PehWcfqsou3Cc+6JhQZiqwbrEwSUqk9VBGPJGCY2ndVgQQhdQrP+oGJ5satJKq6WB9i0E1rzwGxuVQ7PGl+UgYXS4c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Ewhd8knS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.14 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Ewhd8knS" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1722847602; x=1754383602; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=XXh3b2lZABj/jp80lL7QrhLvmjDd1NOLcrEenB+o3ac=; b=Ewhd8knS58lnsN67HYHsFTa+FyqGKcdKM6PKClFY7KoMBfffBM2BCLio 1UK74t9LbsVlbIjitM2Ve1IZn2FlpfV1WJL1A9tZacSmJu+3H4U4Y7f4R kW3o5KujxP/QCbrs7YuHdMNxCerlNJuRWRlg+t4Lqzq1XJZzHbpz5B/Cu feClAYG6t6ZWLHGyh1wH3/gYG+VklVuAYRDNHIHZDY8lW8yPgMdfWUJlq fL/5vJWFp3doUb7mUaG5UI6XQAh/V8JJarFdMouC0mAauLvPawYC5F1a0 dsZ3+CHDyACdtkTrPXB2r+qQxAWrvQUrDIUHysrGqg0VmFhZ9hUCNoena A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: jrh712EeTRSuLfiDIOYR4w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: TSrkTCQDT/y49znfewh5EQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11154"; a="20971077" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,264,1716274800"; d="scan'208";a="20971077" Received: from orviesa006.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.146]) by fmvoesa108.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Aug 2024 01:46:41 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: eABzhGYzRjeGdxFQyP/LDA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Fl765BGcRAOr3EZ53gjFOg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,264,1716274800"; d="scan'208";a="56302588" Received: from linux.bj.intel.com ([10.238.157.71]) by orviesa006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Aug 2024 01:46:40 -0700 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 16:41:45 +0800 From: Tao Su To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Paolo Bonzini , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] KVM: Assert slots_lock is held in __kvm_set_memory_region() Message-ID: References: <20240802205003.353672-1-seanjc@google.com> <20240802205003.353672-3-seanjc@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240802205003.353672-3-seanjc@google.com> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 01:49:59PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > Add a proper lockdep assertion in __kvm_set_memory_region() instead of > relying on a function comment. Opportunistically delete the entire > function comment as the API doesn't allocate memory or select a gfn, > and the "mostly for framebuffers" comment hasn't been true for a very long > time. > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > --- > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 10 ++-------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > index 0557d663b69b..f202bdbfca9e 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > @@ -1973,14 +1973,6 @@ static bool kvm_check_memslot_overlap(struct kvm_memslots *slots, int id, > return false; > } > > -/* > - * Allocate some memory and give it an address in the guest physical address > - * space. > - * > - * Discontiguous memory is allowed, mostly for framebuffers. > - * > - * Must be called holding kvm->slots_lock for write. > - */ > int __kvm_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm, > const struct kvm_userspace_memory_region2 *mem) > { > @@ -1992,6 +1984,8 @@ int __kvm_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm, > int as_id, id; > int r; > > + lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->slots_lock); How about adding this lockdep assertion in __x86_set_memory_region() to replace this comment "/* Called with kvm->slots_lock held. */" as well? > + > r = check_memory_region_flags(kvm, mem); > if (r) > return r; > -- > 2.46.0.rc2.264.g509ed76dc8-goog > >