On Wed, Feb 08, 2023, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 02:13:40PM +0800,
Chao Peng [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
+static int kvm_vm_ioctl_set_mem_attributes(struct kvm *kvm,
+ struct kvm_memory_attributes *attrs)
+{
+ gfn_t start, end;
+ unsigned long i;
+ void *entry;
+ u64 supported_attrs = kvm_supported_mem_attributes(kvm);
+
+ /* flags is currently not used. */
+ if (attrs->flags)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ if (attrs->attributes & ~supported_attrs)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ if (attrs->size == 0 || attrs->address + attrs->size < attrs->address)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ if (!PAGE_ALIGNED(attrs->address) || !PAGE_ALIGNED(attrs->size))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ start = attrs->address >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+ end = (attrs->address + attrs->size - 1 + PAGE_SIZE) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+
+ entry = attrs->attributes ? xa_mk_value(attrs->attributes) : NULL;
+
+ mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
+ for (i = start; i < end; i++)
+ if (xa_err(xa_store(&kvm->mem_attr_array, i, entry,
+ GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT)))
+ break;
+ mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
+
+ attrs->address = i << PAGE_SHIFT;
+ attrs->size = (end - i) << PAGE_SHIFT;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+#endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES */
+
If memslot isn't private, it should return error if private attribute is set.
Why? I'd rather keep the two things separate. If we enforce this sort of thing
at KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES, then we also have to enforce it at
KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION.