[3/3] KVM: x86/mmu: Reword a misleading comment about checking gpte_changed()

Commit Message

Sean Christopherson Aug. 2, 2024, 8:39 p.m. UTC

Rewrite the comment in FNAME(fetch) to explain why KVM needs to check that
the gPTE is still fresh before continuing the shadow page walk, even if
KVM already has a linked shadow page for the gPTE in question.

No functional change intended.

Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <[e-mail]>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Patch

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
index 480c54122991..405bd7ceee2a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
@@ -695,8 +695,14 @@  static int FNAME(fetch)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault,
 			return RET_PF_RETRY;
 
 		/*
-		 * Verify that the gpte in the page we've just write
-		 * protected is still there.
+		 * Verify that the gpte in the page, which is now either
+		 * write-protected or unsync, wasn't modified between the fault
+		 * and acquiring mmu_lock.  This needs to be done even when
+		 * reusing an existing shadow page to ensure the information
+		 * gathered by the walker matches the information stored in the
+		 * shadow page (which could have been modified by a different
+		 * vCPU even if the page was already linked).  Holding mmu_lock
+		 * prevents the shadow page from changing after this point.
 		 */
 		if (FNAME(gpte_changed)(vcpu, gw, it.level - 1))
 			return RET_PF_RETRY;