[PATCH v2 10/18] KVM: arm64: Introduce __pkvm_host_share_guest()

[Quentin Perret]

On Tuesday 10 Dec 2024 at 15:51:01 (+0000), Fuad Tabba wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 15:41, Quentin Perret <qperret at google.com> wrote:
> > > Initially I thought the comment was related to the warning below,
> > > which confused me.
> >
> > It actually is about the warning below :-)
> >
> > > Now I think what you're trying to say is that we'll
> > > allow the share, and the (unrelated to the comment) warning is to
> > > ensure that the PKVM_PAGE_SHARED_OWNED is consistent with the share
> > > count.
> >
> > So, the only case where the host should ever attempt do use
> > __pkvm_host_share_guest() on a page that is already shared is for a page
> > already shared *with an np-guest*. The page->host_share_guest_count being
> > elevated is the easiest way to check that the page is indeed in that
> > state, hence the warning.
> >
> > If for example the host was trying to share with an np-guest a page that
> > is currently shared with the hypervisor, that check would fail. We can
> > discuss whether or not we would want to allow it, but for now there is
> > strictly no need for it so I went with the restrictive option. We can
> > relax that constraint later if need be.
> >
> > > I think what you should have here, which would work better with the
> > > comment, is something like:
> > >
> > >                 /* Only host to np-guest multi-sharing is tolerated */
> > > +               if (pkvm_hyp_vcpu_is_protected(vcpu))
> > > +                       return -EPERM;
> > >
> > > That would even make the comment unnecessary.
> >
> > I would prefer not adding this here, handle___pkvm_host_share_guest() in
> > hyp-main.c already does that for us.
> 
> I understand now, and I agree that an additional check isn't
> necessary. Could you clarify the comment though? It's the word "only"
> that threw me off, since to me it implied that the check was enforcing
> the word "only". Maybe:
> 
> >                 /* Tolerate host to np-guest multi-sharing. */

I guess 'only' is somewhat important, it is the _only_ type of
multi-sharing that we allow and the check enforces precisely that. The
WARN_ON() will be triggered for any other type of multi-sharing, so we
are really checking that _only_ np-guest multi-sharing goes through.

Perhaps the confusing part is that the code as-is relies on WARN_ON()
being fatal for the enforcement. Would it help if I changed the 'break'
statement right after to 'fallthrough' so we proceed to return -EPERM?
In practice we won't return anything as the hypervisor will panic, but
I presume it is better from a logic perspective.

Cheers,
Quentin