| Message ID | 20210517200758.22593-7-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | KVM: s390: pv: implement lazy destroy | expand |
On 5/17/21 10:07 PM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > Use the is_protected field as a counter instead of a flag. This will > be used in upcoming patches. > > Increment the counter when a secure configuration is created, and > decrement it when it is destroyed. Previously the flag was set when the > set secure parameters UVC was performed. > > Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> Acked-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> > --- > arch/s390/kvm/pv.c | 12 +++++++----- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c > index c3f9f30d2ed4..59039b8a7be7 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c > @@ -218,7 +218,8 @@ int kvm_s390_pv_deinit_vm(struct kvm *kvm, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc) > cc = uv_cmd_nodata(kvm_s390_pv_get_handle(kvm), > UVC_CMD_DESTROY_SEC_CONF, rc, rrc); > WRITE_ONCE(kvm->arch.gmap->guest_handle, 0); > - atomic_set(&kvm->mm->context.is_protected, 0); > + if (!cc) > + atomic_dec(&kvm->mm->context.is_protected); > KVM_UV_EVENT(kvm, 3, "PROTVIRT DESTROY VM: rc %x rrc %x", *rc, *rrc); > WARN_ONCE(cc, "protvirt destroy vm failed rc %x rrc %x", *rc, *rrc); > /* Intended memory leak on "impossible" error */ > @@ -259,11 +260,14 @@ int kvm_s390_pv_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc) > /* Outputs */ > kvm->arch.pv.handle = uvcb.guest_handle; > > + atomic_inc(&kvm->mm->context.is_protected); > if (cc) { > - if (uvcb.header.rc & UVC_RC_NEED_DESTROY) > + if (uvcb.header.rc & UVC_RC_NEED_DESTROY) { > kvm_s390_pv_deinit_vm(kvm, &dummy, &dummy); > - else > + } else { > + atomic_dec(&kvm->mm->context.is_protected); > kvm_s390_pv_dealloc_vm(kvm); > + } > return -EIO; > } > kvm->arch.gmap->guest_handle = uvcb.guest_handle; > @@ -286,8 +290,6 @@ int kvm_s390_pv_set_sec_parms(struct kvm *kvm, void *hdr, u64 length, u16 *rc, > *rrc = uvcb.header.rrc; > KVM_UV_EVENT(kvm, 3, "PROTVIRT VM SET PARMS: rc %x rrc %x", > *rc, *rrc); > - if (!cc) > - atomic_set(&kvm->mm->context.is_protected, 1); > return cc ? -EINVAL : 0; > } > >
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c index c3f9f30d2ed4..59039b8a7be7 100644 --- a/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c @@ -218,7 +218,8 @@ int kvm_s390_pv_deinit_vm(struct kvm *kvm, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc) cc = uv_cmd_nodata(kvm_s390_pv_get_handle(kvm), UVC_CMD_DESTROY_SEC_CONF, rc, rrc); WRITE_ONCE(kvm->arch.gmap->guest_handle, 0); - atomic_set(&kvm->mm->context.is_protected, 0); + if (!cc) + atomic_dec(&kvm->mm->context.is_protected); KVM_UV_EVENT(kvm, 3, "PROTVIRT DESTROY VM: rc %x rrc %x", *rc, *rrc); WARN_ONCE(cc, "protvirt destroy vm failed rc %x rrc %x", *rc, *rrc); /* Intended memory leak on "impossible" error */ @@ -259,11 +260,14 @@ int kvm_s390_pv_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc) /* Outputs */ kvm->arch.pv.handle = uvcb.guest_handle; + atomic_inc(&kvm->mm->context.is_protected); if (cc) { - if (uvcb.header.rc & UVC_RC_NEED_DESTROY) + if (uvcb.header.rc & UVC_RC_NEED_DESTROY) { kvm_s390_pv_deinit_vm(kvm, &dummy, &dummy); - else + } else { + atomic_dec(&kvm->mm->context.is_protected); kvm_s390_pv_dealloc_vm(kvm); + } return -EIO; } kvm->arch.gmap->guest_handle = uvcb.guest_handle; @@ -286,8 +290,6 @@ int kvm_s390_pv_set_sec_parms(struct kvm *kvm, void *hdr, u64 length, u16 *rc, *rrc = uvcb.header.rrc; KVM_UV_EVENT(kvm, 3, "PROTVIRT VM SET PARMS: rc %x rrc %x", *rc, *rrc); - if (!cc) - atomic_set(&kvm->mm->context.is_protected, 1); return cc ? -EINVAL : 0; }
Use the is_protected field as a counter instead of a flag. This will be used in upcoming patches. Increment the counter when a secure configuration is created, and decrement it when it is destroyed. Previously the flag was set when the set secure parameters UVC was performed. Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> --- arch/s390/kvm/pv.c | 12 +++++++----- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)