On 9/26/19 10:18 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> @@ -1597,8 +1615,11 @@ static bool spte_clear_dirty(u64 *sptep)
>
> rmap_printk("rmap_clear_dirty: spte %p %llx\n", sptep, *sptep);
>
> - spte &= ~shadow_dirty_mask;
> + WARN_ON(!spte_ad_enabled(spte));
> + if (spte_ad_need_write_protect(spte))
> + return spte_write_protect(sptep, false);
>
> + spte &= ~shadow_dirty_mask;
> return mmu_spte_update(sptep, spte);
> }
>
I think that it would be a bit cleaner to move the spte_ad_need_write_protect()
check to the if statement inside __rmap_clear_dirty() instead, since it already
checks for spte_ad_enabled() to decide between write-protection and
dirty-clearing.
Reviewed-by: Junaid Shahid <juna...@google.com>
