Re: [PATCH Part2 v5 08/45] x86/fault: Add support to handle the RMP fault for user address

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:58:41AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:

+static int handle_user_rmp_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code,
+				      unsigned long address)
+{

#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT

+	int rmp_level, level;
+	pte_t *pte;
+	u64 pfn;
+
+	pte = lookup_address_in_mm(current->mm, address, &level);
+
+	/*
+	 * It can happen if there was a race between an unmap event and
+	 * the RMP fault delivery.
+	 */
+	if (!pte || !pte_present(*pte))
+		return 1;
+
+	pfn = pte_pfn(*pte);
+
+	/* If its large page then calculte the fault pfn */
+	if (level > PG_LEVEL_4K) {
+		unsigned long mask;
+
+		mask = pages_per_hpage(level) - pages_per_hpage(level - 1);

Just use two helper variables named properly instead of this oneliner:

		pages_level 	 = page_level_size(level) / PAGE_SIZE;
		pages_prev_level = page_level_size(level - 1) / PAGE_SIZE;

+		pfn |= (address >> PAGE_SHIFT) & mask;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * If its a guest private page, then the fault cannot be resolved.
+	 * Send a SIGBUS to terminate the process.
+	 */
+	if (snp_lookup_rmpentry(pfn, &rmp_level)) {
+		do_sigbus(regs, error_code, address, VM_FAULT_SIGBUS);
+		return 1;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * The backing page level is higher than the RMP page level, request
+	 * to split the page.
+	 */
+	if (level > rmp_level)
+		return 0;
+
+	return 1;

#else
	WARN_ONONCE(1);
	return -1;
#endif

and also handle that -1 negative value at the call site.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette