[PATCH v4 17/19] arm64: KVM: Dynamically compute the HYP VA mask

[Marc Zyngier]

On 18/01/18 20:28, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 06:43:32PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> As we're moving towards a much more dynamic way to compute our
>> HYP VA, let's express the mask in a slightly different way.
>>
>> Instead of comparing the idmap position to the "low" VA mask,
>> we directly compute the mask by taking into account the idmap's
>> (VA_BIT-1) bit.
>>
>> No functionnal change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c | 17 ++++++-----------
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c
>> index aee758574e61..75bb1c6772b0 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c
>> @@ -21,24 +21,19 @@
>>  #include <asm/insn.h>
>>  #include <asm/kvm_mmu.h>
>>  
>> -#define HYP_PAGE_OFFSET_HIGH_MASK	((UL(1) << VA_BITS) - 1)
>> -#define HYP_PAGE_OFFSET_LOW_MASK	((UL(1) << (VA_BITS - 1)) - 1)
>> -
>>  static u64 va_mask;
>>  
>>  static void compute_layout(void)
>>  {
>>  	phys_addr_t idmap_addr = __pa_symbol(__hyp_idmap_text_start);
>> -	unsigned long mask = HYP_PAGE_OFFSET_HIGH_MASK;
>> +	u64 region;
> 
> the naming here really confused me.  Would it make sense to call this
> 'hyp_va_msb' or something like that instead?
> 
>>  
>> -	/*
>> -	 * Activate the lower HYP offset only if the idmap doesn't
>> -	 * clash with it,
>> -	 */
>> -	if (idmap_addr > HYP_PAGE_OFFSET_LOW_MASK)
>> -		mask = HYP_PAGE_OFFSET_HIGH_MASK;
> 
> Ah, the series was tested, it was just that this code only existed for a
> short while.  Amusingly, I think this ephemeral bug goes against the "No
> function change" statement in the commit message.
> 
>> +	/* Where is my RAM region? */
>> +	region  = idmap_addr & BIT(VA_BITS - 1);
>> +	region ^= BIT(VA_BITS - 1);
>>  
>> -	va_mask = mask;
>> +	va_mask  = BIT(VA_BITS - 1) - 1;
> 
> nit: This could also be written as GENMASK_ULL(VA_BITS - 2, 0) --- and
> now I'm not sure which one I prefer.

Good point. I think GENMASK makes it clearer what the intent is, and
assigning a mask to a mask has certain degree of consistency (/me fondly
remembers dimensional analysis...).

> 
>> +	va_mask |= region;
>>  }
>>  
>>  static u32 compute_instruction(int n, u32 rd, u32 rn)
>> -- 
>> 2.14.2
>>
> Otherwise looks good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org>
> 

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...