From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (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 08EA9320CAF; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:09:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763129370; cv=none; b=EcC63oSf5melu/xnfER977D4w3Ol8aszPCEFYnjwAJKUB2mGW5DDR48dSjSA5lajT3fkT5En2HvAf2O18T38RQGihcflMoLQ43IDHPYGkWdARXHYlvbz5sA5TLTMa/Bkf2muByR3Duy6E0Gy5PjYH9/L0/WN3OlfbiPtIjpTIHE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763129370; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QqSd3FodRWev3T+P0IxwcQyY1VKMNzXWoC4VfSXWsII=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=BtYM9uUz1xjq21saqvd4dP98VbI1NRzIPHxOurtW9Zqjof5AzSA8AZ6RA8GsCqnj/xdYZL/BoBGeJPN7ITeHNED/i16AHK38Svtk19wsOekd976IDWMRBGnFTmfsgayPD1XYpoqfNgu34eoVn5jzm+SW7JSU8GdVsXVdFLzLgk8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=XTjoRmIr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="XTjoRmIr" Received: from pps.filterd (m0356517.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 5AEDr0re022140; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:09:11 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=YWNsAE t7zisYsqupom70mKZLsroN/yMnquzTBctJMto=; b=XTjoRmIrRrlNfpRGRpdE/3 OP8tWeeK/SYGCQLxj6CL8AWZIiYvBsLo7CY2TsTv0ezQIUsPB7vg2E78suLgpYTx NrCiiiFAFAz5EfNxRXwkDnWP4ijKvQvdJrEY5dWWFuNvC0UahyOLMAhHPcx7ZNhX 4eAqC3yOFheWbgWXCA4GPq/VOzL8GcM39xwVLVmk9Rx28kZ5E/4fLnM5ktHLKHSs QRKWNsAhWrh1G2c7fzjg0+aMVC1b6iLXVDZJ5m6Ookju5mH9ZB0ec7B4Bju18FWq AKHEZAypOWk/K0SDaHWpdZydM7DzWEtBmqtp7nXQ1ls+XFLfwye+AthOGVdMCqzQ == Received: from ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5c.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.92]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4adrecty24-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:09:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 5AED02iH004770; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:09:09 GMT Received: from smtprelay06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.230]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4aagjybqf6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:09:09 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.102]) by smtprelay06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 5AEE95Hs13173190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:09:05 GMT Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBBC520040; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:09:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB072004E; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:09:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.111.27.148] (unknown [9.111.27.148]) by smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:09:04 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <1c5279ce-b0d6-4c08-becb-b52d7d6d48ae@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 15:09:04 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 07/11] KVM: s390: Shadow VSIE SCA in guest-1 To: Christoph Schlameuss , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Alexander Gordeev , Christian Borntraeger , Claudio Imbrenda , Nico Boehr , David Hildenbrand , Sven Schnelle , Paolo Bonzini , Shuah Khan References: <20251110-vsieie-v2-0-9e53a3618c8c@linux.ibm.com> <20251110-vsieie-v2-7-9e53a3618c8c@linux.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Janosch Frank Autocrypt: addr=frankja@linux.ibm.com; keydata= xsFNBFubpD4BEADX0uhkRhkj2AVn7kI4IuPY3A8xKat0ihuPDXbynUC77mNox7yvK3X5QBO6 qLqYr+qrG3buymJJRD9xkp4mqgasHdB5WR9MhXWKH08EvtvAMkEJLnqxgbqf8td3pCQ2cEpv 15mH49iKSmlTcJ+PvJpGZcq/jE42u9/0YFHhozm8GfQdb9SOI/wBSsOqcXcLTUeAvbdqSBZe zuMRBivJQQI1esD9HuADmxdE7c4AeMlap9MvxvUtWk4ZJ/1Z3swMVCGzZb2Xg/9jZpLsyQzb lDbbTlEeyBACeED7DYLZI3d0SFKeJZ1SUyMmSOcr9zeSh4S4h4w8xgDDGmeDVygBQZa1HaoL Esb8Y4avOYIgYDhgkCh0nol7XQ5i/yKLtnNThubAcxNyryw1xSstnKlxPRoxtqTsxMAiSekk 0m3WJwvwd1s878HrQNK0orWd8BzzlSswzjNfQYLF466JOjHPWFOok9pzRs+ucrs6MUwDJj0S cITWU9Rxb04XyigY4XmZ8dywaxwi2ZVTEg+MD+sPmRrTw+5F+sU83cUstuymF3w1GmyofgsU Z+/ldjToHnq21MNa1wx0lCEipCCyE/8K9B9bg9pUwy5lfx7yORP3JuAUfCYb8DVSHWBPHKNj HTOLb2g2UT65AjZEQE95U2AY9iYm5usMqaWD39pAHfhC09/7NQARAQABzSVKYW5vc2NoIEZy YW5rIDxmcmFua2phQGxpbnV4LmlibS5jb20+wsF3BBMBCAAhBQJbm6Q+AhsjBQsJCAcCBhUI CQoLAgQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEONU5rjiOLn4p9gQALjkdj5euJVI2nNT3/IAxAhQSmRhPEt0 AmnCYnuTcHRWPujNr5kqgtyER9+EMQ0ZkX44JU2q7OWxTdSNSAN/5Z7qmOR9JySvDOf4d3mS bMB5zxL9d8SbnSs1uW96H9ZBTlTQnmLfsiM9TetAjSrR8nUmjGhe2YUhJLR1v1LguME+YseT eXnLzIzqqpu311/eYiiIGcmaOjPCE+vFjcXL5oLnGUE73qSYiujwhfPCCUK0850o1fUAYq5p CNBCoKT4OddZR+0itKc/cT6NwEDwdokeg0+rAhxb4Rv5oFO70lziBplEjOxu3dqgIKbHbjza EXTb+mr7VI9O4tTdqrwJo2q9zLqqOfDBi7NDvZFLzaCewhbdEpDYVu6/WxprAY94hY3F4trT rQMHJKQENtF6ZTQc9fcT5I3gAmP+OEvDE5hcTALpWm6Z6SzxO7gEYCnF+qGXqp8sJVrweMub UscyLqHoqdZC2UG4LQ1OJ97nzDpIRe0g6oJ9ZIYHKmfw5jjwH6rASTld5MFWajWdNsqK15k/ RZnHAGICKVIBOBsq26m4EsBlfCdt3b/6emuBjUXR1pyjHMz2awWzCq6/6OWs5eANZ0sdosNq dq2v0ULYTazJz2rlCXV89qRa7ukkNwdBSZNEwsD4eEMicj1LSrqWDZMAALw50L4jxaMD7lPL jJbazsFNBFubpD4BEADAcUTRqXF/aY53OSH7IwIK9lFKxIm0IoFkOEh7LMfp7FGzaP7ANrZd cIzhZi38xyOkcaFY+npGEWvko7rlIAn0JpBO4x3hfhmhBD/WSY8LQIFQNNjEm3vzrMo7b9Jb JAqQxfbURY3Dql3GUzeWTG9uaJ00u+EEPlY8zcVShDltIl5PLih20e8xgTnNzx5c110lQSu0 iZv2lAE6DM+2bJQTsMSYiwKlwTuv9LI9Chnoo6+tsN55NqyMxYqJgElk3VzlTXSr3+rtSCwf tq2cinETbzxc1XuhIX6pu/aCGnNfuEkM34b7G1D6CPzDMqokNFbyoO6DQ1+fW6c5gctXg/lZ 602iEl4C4rgcr3+EpfoPUWzKeM8JXv5Kpq4YDxhvbitr8Dm8gr38+UKFZKlWLlwhQ56r/zAU v6LIsm11GmFs2/cmgD1bqBTNHHcTWwWtRTLgmnqJbVisMJuYJt4KNPqphTWsPY8SEtbufIlY HXOJ2lqUzOReTrie2u0qcSvGAbSfec9apTFl2Xko/ddqPcZMpKhBiXmY8tJzSPk3+G4tqur4 6TYAm5ouitJsgAR61Cu7s+PNuq/pTLDhK+6/Njmc94NGBcRA4qTuysEGE79vYWP2oIAU4Fv6 gqaWHZ4MEI2XTqH8wiwzPdCQPYsSE0fXWiYu7ObeErT6iLSTZGx4rQARAQABwsFfBBgBCAAJ BQJbm6Q+AhsMAAoJEONU5rjiOLn4DDEP/RuyckW65SZcPG4cMfNgWxZF8rVjeVl/9PBfy01K 8R0hajU40bWtXSMiby7j0/dMjz99jN6L+AJHJvrLz4qYRzn2Ys843W+RfXj62Zde4YNBE5SL jJweRCbMWKaJLj6499fctxTyeb9+AMLQS4yRSwHuAZLmAb5AyCW1gBcTWZb8ON5BmWnRqeGm IgC1EvCnHy++aBnHTn0m+zV89BhTLTUal35tcjUFwluBY39R2ux/HNlBO1GY3Z+WYXhBvq7q katThLjaQSmnOrMhzqYmdShP1leFTVbzXUUIYv/GbynO/YrL2gaQpaP1bEUEi8lUAfXJbEWG dnHFkciryi092E8/9j89DJg4mmZqOau7TtUxjRMlBcIliXkzSLUk+QvD4LK1kWievJse4mte FBdkWHfP4BH/+8DxapRcG1UAheSnSRQ5LiO50annOB7oXF+vgKIaie2TBfZxQNGAs3RQ+bga DchCqFm5adiSP5+OT4NjkKUeGpBe/aRyQSle/RropTgCi85pje/juYEn2P9UAgkfBJrOHvQ9 Z+2Sva8FRd61NJLkCJ4LFumRn9wQlX2icFbi8UDV3do0hXJRRYTWCxrHscMhkrFWLhYiPF4i phX7UNdOWBQ90qpHyAxHmDazdo27gEjfvsgYMdveKknEOTEb5phwxWgg7BcIDoJf9UMC In-Reply-To: <20251110-vsieie-v2-7-9e53a3618c8c@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjUxMTEzMDE3OSBTYWx0ZWRfX6z97ZM3Mfo6X YKwLwT5P9Sr5WrkqNp9DcSSRdHSDWJdUVj8rEgGNXloLWO8FCPELe6gxwcl60xeZ8kVBonW/zUB ptAH9GxWEACiA1xyOsAlvXkynT/SZTTC4ofJA00Qn1OaznLNf+kSq9ht4oxK9oCCVHZA6AZK06y aNUeFPq7m/0MNDFdNJirznUEnx9sdwlsUPZG3pHTeGgkoC04A2Mi9OiV7r+LHfif8xHmoYDzxg4 BbKOFkGnSod1VbI18E8A/ZdQ0c4MJflRonXIjUTyux/83QIsQONNtiXEbPgk1VBNNyS9qLNV1re O743bMs6QycHdmRV2qH4+aIcFWijXAzQb/z4lYNuu2TrL2tD70zqKJFX7JXyvbddMG2q1E14OTk Fr93w1z9yMpuSpFElrcqwVxmOukCxA== X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=E//AZKdl c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=69173807 cx=c_pps a=5BHTudwdYE3Te8bg5FgnPg==:117 a=5BHTudwdYE3Te8bg5FgnPg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=6UeiqGixMTsA:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=VnNF1IyMAAAA:8 a=Pl2lnVEkADD1yfzgVSYA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=cPQSjfK2_nFv0Q5t_7PE:22 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 05kJl2r87oPEqrosMF1ZOT3419vsjl9o X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 05kJl2r87oPEqrosMF1ZOT3419vsjl9o X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1121,Hydra:6.1.9,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2025-11-14_04,2025-11-13_02,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2510240000 definitions=main-2511130179 On 11/10/25 18:16, Christoph Schlameuss wrote: > Restructure kvm_s390_handle_vsie() to create a guest-1 shadow of the SCA > if guest-2 attempts to enter SIE with an SCA. If the SCA is used the > vsie_pages are stored in a new vsie_sca struct instead of the arch vsie > struct. > > When the VSIE-Interpretation-Extension Facility is active (minimum z17) > the shadow SCA (ssca_block) will be created and shadows of all CPUs > defined in the configuration are created. > SCAOL/H in the VSIE control block are overwritten with references to the > shadow SCA. > > The shadow SCA contains the addresses of the original guest-3 SCA as > well as the original VSIE control blocks. With these addresses the > machine can directly monitor the intervention bits within the original > SCA entries, enabling it to handle SENSE_RUNNING and EXTERNAL_CALL sigp > instructions without exiting VSIE. > > The original SCA will be pinned in guest-2 memory and only be unpinned > before reuse. This means some pages might still be pinned even after the > guest 3 VM does no longer exist. > > The ssca_blocks are also kept within a radix tree to reuse already > existing ssca_blocks efficiently. While the radix tree and array with > references to the ssca_blocks are held in the vsie_sca struct. > The use of vsie_scas is tracked using an ref_count. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Schlameuss > --- > arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 11 +- > arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host_types.h | 5 +- > arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 6 +- > arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h | 2 +- > arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c | 672 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 5 files changed, 596 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-) > [...] > +enum vsie_sca_flags { > + VSIE_SCA_ESCA = 0, > + VSIE_SCA_PINNED = 1, > }; > > struct vsie_page { > @@ -62,7 +68,9 @@ struct vsie_page { > * looked up by other CPUs. > */ > unsigned long flags; /* 0x0260 */ > - __u8 reserved[0x0700 - 0x0268]; /* 0x0268 */ > + /* vsie system control area */ > + struct vsie_sca *sca; /* 0x0268 */ > + __u8 reserved[0x0700 - 0x0270]; /* 0x0270 */ > struct kvm_s390_crypto_cb crycb; /* 0x0700 */ > __u8 fac[S390_ARCH_FAC_LIST_SIZE_BYTE]; /* 0x0800 */ > }; > @@ -72,6 +80,41 @@ struct kvm_address_pair { > hpa_t hpa; > }; > > +/* > + * Store the vsie system configuration data. > + */ > +struct vsie_sca { > + /* calculated guest addresses of the sca */ Can you move the comments to the right? Well, actually I'm not sure why we need them at all. Aren't the variable names enough? > + gpa_t sca_gpa; > + atomic_t ref_count; > + /* defined in enum vsie_sca_flags */ Move the enum above the struct please. > + unsigned long flags; > + unsigned long sca_o_nr_pages; > + struct kvm_address_pair sca_o_pages[KVM_S390_MAX_SCA_PAGES]; > + u64 mcn[4]; > + struct ssca_block *ssca; > + int page_count; > + int page_next; > + struct vsie_page *pages[KVM_S390_MAX_VSIE_VCPUS]; > +}; > + > +static inline bool use_vsie_sigpif(struct kvm *kvm) > +{ > + return kvm->arch.use_vsie_sigpif; > +} > + > +static inline bool use_vsie_sigpif_for(struct kvm *kvm, struct vsie_page *vsie_page) The "for" in the name is weird. Also, why are we allocating fenced on use_vsie_sigpif() but then shadow on the EC bits and sigpif? If neither extcall nor SRS are interpreted, why shadow via vsigpif at all? > +{ > + return use_vsie_sigpif(kvm) && > + (vsie_page->scb_o->eca & ECA_SIGPI) && > + (vsie_page->scb_o->ecb & ECB_SRSI); Is SIGPI a prereq for SRSI and vice versa for vsigpif? If no, then this should not be anded. > +} > + > +static inline bool sie_uses_esca(struct kvm_s390_sie_block *scb) > +{ > + return (scb->ecb2 & ECB2_ESCA); > +} > + > /** > * gmap_shadow_valid() - check if a shadow guest address space matches the > * given properties and is still valid > @@ -630,6 +673,8 @@ static int shadow_scb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page) > scb_s->ictl |= ICTL_ISKE | ICTL_SSKE | ICTL_RRBE; > > scb_s->icpua = scb_o->icpua; > + write_scao(scb_s, virt_to_phys(vsie_page->sca->ssca)); > + scb_s->osda = virt_to_phys(scb_o); > > if (!(atomic_read(&scb_s->cpuflags) & CPUSTAT_SM)) > new_mso = READ_ONCE(scb_o->mso) & 0xfffffffffff00000UL; > @@ -681,6 +726,8 @@ static int shadow_scb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page) > /* Instruction Execution Prevention */ > if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 130)) > scb_s->ecb2 |= scb_o->ecb2 & ECB2_IEP; > + /* extended SCA */ > + scb_s->ecb2 |= scb_o->ecb2 & ECB2_ESCA; > /* Guarded Storage */ > if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 133)) { > scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_GS; > @@ -713,12 +760,250 @@ static int shadow_scb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page) > return rc; > } > > +/* Called with ssca_lock held. */ > +static void unpin_sca(struct kvm *kvm, struct vsie_sca *sca) > +{ > + if (!test_bit(VSIE_SCA_PINNED, &sca->flags)) > + return; > + > + unpin_guest_pages(kvm, sca->sca_o_pages, sca->sca_o_nr_pages); > + sca->sca_o_nr_pages = 0; > + > + __clear_bit(VSIE_SCA_PINNED, &sca->flags); > +} > + > +/* pin g2s original sca in g1 memory */ > +static int pin_sca(struct kvm *kvm, struct vsie_page *vsie_page, struct vsie_sca *sca) > +{ > + bool is_esca = sie_uses_esca(vsie_page->scb_o); > + int nr_pages = KVM_S390_MAX_SCA_PAGES; > + > + if (test_bit(VSIE_SCA_PINNED, &sca->flags)) > + return 0; > + > + if (!is_esca) { > + nr_pages = 1; > + if ((sca->sca_gpa & ~PAGE_MASK) + sizeof(struct bsca_block) > PAGE_SIZE) > + nr_pages = 2; > + } > + > + sca->sca_o_nr_pages = pin_guest_pages(kvm, sca->sca_gpa, nr_pages, sca->sca_o_pages); > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(sca->sca_o_nr_pages != nr_pages)) { > + set_validity_icpt(&vsie_page->scb_s, 0x0034U); > + return -EIO; Any idea when this would happen? gpa translate to last page and following pages would be over the guests allowed memory? > + } > + __set_bit(VSIE_SCA_PINNED, &sca->flags); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static void get_sca_entry_addr(struct kvm *kvm, struct vsie_page *vsie_page, struct vsie_sca *sca, > + u16 cpu_nr, gpa_t *gpa, hpa_t *hpa) > +{ > + hpa_t offset; > + int pn; > + > + /* > + * We cannot simply access the hva since the esca_block has typically > + * 4 pages (arch max 5 pages) that might not be continuous in g1 memory. > + * The bsca_block may also be stretched over two pages. Only the header > + * is guaranteed to be on the same page. > + */ > + if (test_bit(VSIE_SCA_ESCA, &sca->flags)) > + offset = offsetof(struct esca_block, cpu[cpu_nr]); > + else > + offset = offsetof(struct bsca_block, cpu[cpu_nr]); > + pn = ((vsie_page->sca->sca_gpa & ~PAGE_MASK) + offset) >> PAGE_SHIFT; > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pn > sca->sca_o_nr_pages)) > + return; > + > + if (gpa) > + *gpa = sca->sca_o_pages[pn].gpa + offset; > + if (hpa) > + *hpa = sca->sca_o_pages[pn].hpa + offset; > +}