On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 04:18:42 +0000, Gavin Shan <gs...@redhat.com> wrote: > > find_vma_intersection() has been existing to search the intersected > vma. This uses the function where it's applicable, to simplify the > code. > > Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gs...@redhat.com> > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 10 ++++++---- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c > index 84e70f953de6..286b603ed0d3 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c > @@ -421,10 +421,11 @@ static void stage2_unmap_memslot(struct kvm *kvm, > * +--------------------------------------------+ > */ > do { > - struct vm_area_struct *vma = find_vma(current->mm, hva); > + struct vm_area_struct *vma; > hva_t vm_start, vm_end; > > - if (!vma || vma->vm_start >= reg_end) > + vma = find_vma_intersection(current->mm, hva, reg_end);
For context, here's the definition of find_vma_intersection(): <quote> static inline struct vm_area_struct * find_vma_intersection(struct mm_struct * mm, unsigned long start_addr, unsigned long end_addr) { struct vm_area_struct * vma = find_vma(mm,start_addr); if (vma && end_addr <= vma->vm_start) vma = NULL; return vma; } </quote> It seems that there is a boundary issue in either the old code or the new one in the case where (reg_end == vma->start). Which one is which? M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm