Rename MMU_WARN_ON() to make it super obvious that the assertions are
all about KVM's MMU, not the primary MMU.
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 4 ++--
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h | 4 ++--
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h | 8 ++++----
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 8 ++++----
4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
index 2b65a62fb953..240272b10ceb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -1252,7 +1252,7 @@ static bool spte_clear_dirty(u64 *sptep)
{
u64 spte = *sptep;
- MMU_WARN_ON(!spte_ad_enabled(spte));
+ KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(!spte_ad_enabled(spte));
spte &= ~shadow_dirty_mask;
return mmu_spte_update(sptep, spte);
}
@@ -1728,7 +1728,7 @@ static void kvm_unaccount_mmu_page(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
static void kvm_mmu_free_shadow_page(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
{
- MMU_WARN_ON(!is_empty_shadow_page(sp->spt));
+ KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(!is_empty_shadow_page(sp->spt));
hlist_del(&sp->hash_link);
list_del(&sp->link);
free_page((unsigned long)sp->spt);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
index 9ea80e4d463c..bb1649669bc9 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@
#undef MMU_DEBUG
#ifdef MMU_DEBUG
-#define MMU_WARN_ON(x) WARN_ON(x)
+#define KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(x) WARN_ON(x)
#else
-#define MMU_WARN_ON(x) do { } while (0)
+#define KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(x) do { } while (0)
#endif
/* Page table builder macros common to shadow (host) PTEs and guest PTEs. */
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
index 1279db2eab44..83e6614f3720 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
@@ -265,13 +265,13 @@ static inline bool sp_ad_disabled(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
static inline bool spte_ad_enabled(u64 spte)
{
- MMU_WARN_ON(!is_shadow_present_pte(spte));
+ KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(!is_shadow_present_pte(spte));
return (spte & SPTE_TDP_AD_MASK) != SPTE_TDP_AD_DISABLED;
}
static inline bool spte_ad_need_write_protect(u64 spte)
{
- MMU_WARN_ON(!is_shadow_present_pte(spte));
+ KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(!is_shadow_present_pte(spte));
/*
* This is benign for non-TDP SPTEs as SPTE_TDP_AD_ENABLED is '0',
* and non-TDP SPTEs will never set these bits. Optimize for 64-bit
@@ -282,13 +282,13 @@ static inline bool spte_ad_need_write_protect(u64 spte)
static inline u64 spte_shadow_accessed_mask(u64 spte)
{
- MMU_WARN_ON(!is_shadow_present_pte(spte));
+ KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(!is_shadow_present_pte(spte));
return spte_ad_enabled(spte) ? shadow_accessed_mask : 0;
}
static inline u64 spte_shadow_dirty_mask(u64 spte)
{
- MMU_WARN_ON(!is_shadow_present_pte(spte));
+ KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(!is_shadow_present_pte(spte));
return spte_ad_enabled(spte) ? shadow_dirty_mask : 0;
}
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
index 08340219c35a..6ef44d60ba2b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
@@ -1545,8 +1545,8 @@ static bool clear_dirty_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *root,
if (!is_shadow_present_pte(iter.old_spte))
continue;
- MMU_WARN_ON(kvm_ad_enabled() &&
- spte_ad_need_write_protect(iter.old_spte));
+ KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(kvm_ad_enabled() &&
+ spte_ad_need_write_protect(iter.old_spte));
if (!(iter.old_spte & dbit))
continue;
@@ -1604,8 +1604,8 @@ static void clear_dirty_pt_masked(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *root,
if (!mask)
break;
- MMU_WARN_ON(kvm_ad_enabled() &&
- spte_ad_need_write_protect(iter.old_spte));
+ KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(kvm_ad_enabled() &&
+ spte_ad_need_write_protect(iter.old_spte));
if (iter.level > PG_LEVEL_4K ||
!(mask & (1UL << (iter.gfn - gfn))))
--
2.40.1.606.ga4b1b128d6-googOn Thu, May 11, 2023 at 04:59:12PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > Rename MMU_WARN_ON() to make it super obvious that the assertions are > all about KVM's MMU, not the primary MMU. I think adding KVM is a step in the right direction but I have 2 remaining problems with KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(): - Reminds me of VM_WARN_ON(), which toggles between WARN_ON() and BUG_ON(), whereas KVM_MMU_WARN_ON() toggles between no-op and WARN_ON(). - It's not obvious from the name that it's a no-op most of the time. Naming is hard so I might just make things worse by trying but... How about KVM_MMU_PROVE(condition). That directly pairs it with the new CONFIG_KVM_PROVE_MMU(), makes it sufficiently different from VM_WARN_ON() and WARN_ON() that readers will not make assumptions about what's happening under the hood. Also "PROVE" sounds like a high bar which conveys this might not always be enabled. That also will allow us to convert this to a WARN_ON_ONCE() (my suggestion on the other patch) without having to make the name any longer.
On Fri, May 12, 2023, David Matlack wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 04:59:12PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Rename MMU_WARN_ON() to make it super obvious that the assertions are > > all about KVM's MMU, not the primary MMU. > > I think adding KVM is a step in the right direction but I have 2 > remaining problems with KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(): > > - Reminds me of VM_WARN_ON(), which toggles between WARN_ON() and > BUG_ON(), whereas KVM_MMU_WARN_ON() toggles between no-op and > WARN_ON(). No, VM_WARN_ON() bounces between WARN_ON() and nop, just like KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(). There's an extra bit of magic that adds a static assert that the code is valid (which I can/should/will add), but the runtime behavior is a nop. #define VM_WARN_ON(cond) (void)WARN_ON(cond) #else #define VM_WARN_ON(cond) BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(cond) /* * BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID() permits the compiler to check the validity of the * expression but avoids the generation of any code, even if that expression * has side-effects. */ #define BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(e) ((void)(sizeof((__force long)(e)))) > - It's not obvious from the name that it's a no-op most of the time. > > Naming is hard so I might just make things worse by trying but... > > How about KVM_MMU_PROVE(condition). That directly pairs it with the new > CONFIG_KVM_PROVE_MMU(), makes it sufficiently different from > VM_WARN_ON() and WARN_ON() that readers will not make assumptions about > what's happening under the hood. Also "PROVE" sounds like a high bar > which conveys this might not always be enabled. It inverts the checks though. Contexting switching between "WARN_ON" and "ASSERT" is hard enough, I don't want to add a third flavor. > That also will allow us to convert this to a WARN_ON_ONCE() (my > suggestion on the other patch) without having to make the name any > longer.
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 4:30 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 12, 2023, David Matlack wrote: > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 04:59:12PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > Rename MMU_WARN_ON() to make it super obvious that the assertions are > > > all about KVM's MMU, not the primary MMU. > > > > I think adding KVM is a step in the right direction but I have 2 > > remaining problems with KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(): > > > > - Reminds me of VM_WARN_ON(), which toggles between WARN_ON() and > > BUG_ON(), whereas KVM_MMU_WARN_ON() toggles between no-op and > > WARN_ON(). > > No, VM_WARN_ON() bounces between WARN_ON() and nop, just like KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(). > There's an extra bit of magic that adds a static assert that the code is valid > (which I can/should/will add), but the runtime behavior is a nop. Ah, you're right, I misread VM_WARN_ON().
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.