On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 04:53:01PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote: > > > > --- > > > > 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 22ee37360c4e..ce13c3d884d5 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c > > > > @@ -1685,15 +1685,17 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu > > > > *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa, > > > > } > > > > > > > > out_unlock: > > > > + if (writable && !ret) > > > > + kvm_set_pfn_dirty(pfn); > > > > > > I'm guessing you meant kvm_release_pfn_dirty() here, because this leaks > > > a reference. > > Doh, I did indeed. Alternatively, this could be: > > if (writable && !ret) > kvm_set_pfn_dirty(pfn); > > kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn); > > It won't matter in the end, because this just becomes: > > kvm_release_faultin_page(kvm, page, !!ret, writable); > > So I guess the question is if you prefer to make the switch to an if-else in > this > path, or more implicitly in the conversion to kvm_release_faultin_page(). > > I made the same goof for RISC-V, perhaps to prove that I too can copy+paste > arm64's > MMU code ;-)
LOL, whatever way you want to address it is fine by me, just wanted to make sure this intermediate bug wouldn't bite an unlucky bisection. -- Thanks, Oliver
