On Wednesday 28 Jul 2021 at 15:32:32 (+0000), David Brazdil wrote:
> Currently range_is_memory finds the corresponding struct memblock_region
> for both the lower and upper bounds of the given address range with two
> rounds of binary search, and then checks that the two memblocks are the
> same. Simplify this by only doing binary search on the lower bound and
> then checking that the upper bound is in the same memblock.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> index a6ce991b1467..37d73af69634 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> @@ -189,13 +189,18 @@ static bool find_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct
> kvm_mem_range *range)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static bool is_in_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range)
> +{
Nit: addr@ could be u64 for consistency -- struct kvm_mem_range holds
IPAs in general.
> + return range->start <= addr && addr < range->end;
> +}
> +
> static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end)
> {
> - struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2;
> + struct kvm_mem_range r;
>
> - if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2))
> + if (!find_mem_range(start, &r))
> return false;
> - if (r1.start != r2.start)
> + if (!is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r))
> return false;
>
> return true;
Nit: maybe drop the second if and simplify to:
return is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r);
With that:
Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Quentin
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
