> On 19 May 2021, at 13:36, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> When adding the HASH_CALLBACKS_CHECK() I failed to properly recognize
> the (somewhat unusually formatted) if() around the call to
> hash_domain_foreach()). Gcc 11 is absolutely right in pointing out the
> apparently misleading indentation. Besides adding the missing braces,
> also adjust the two oddly formatted if()-s in the macro.
>
> Fixes: 90629587e16e ("x86/shadow: replace stale literal numbers in
> hash_{vcpu,domain}_foreach()")
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fance...@arm.com>
Cheers,
Luca
> ---
> I'm puzzled as to why this bug didn't cause any fallout.
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/common.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/common.c
> @@ -2220,8 +2220,8 @@ void sh_remove_shadows(struct domain *d,
> */
> #define DO_UNSHADOW(_type) do { \
> t = (_type); \
> - if( !(pg->count_info & PGC_page_table) \
> - || !(pg->shadow_flags & (1 << t)) ) \
> + if ( !(pg->count_info & PGC_page_table) || \
> + !(pg->shadow_flags & (1 << t)) ) \
> break; \
> smfn = shadow_hash_lookup(d, mfn_x(gmfn), t); \
> if ( unlikely(!mfn_valid(smfn)) ) \
> @@ -2235,11 +2235,13 @@ void sh_remove_shadows(struct domain *d,
> sh_unpin(d, smfn); \
> else if ( sh_type_has_up_pointer(d, t) ) \
> sh_remove_shadow_via_pointer(d, smfn); \
> - if( !fast \
> - && (pg->count_info & PGC_page_table) \
> - && (pg->shadow_flags & (1 << t)) ) \
> + if ( !fast && \
> + (pg->count_info & PGC_page_table) && \
> + (pg->shadow_flags & (1 << t)) ) \
> + { \
> HASH_CALLBACKS_CHECK(SHF_page_type_mask); \
> hash_domain_foreach(d, masks[t], callbacks, smfn); \
> + } \
> } while (0)
>
> DO_UNSHADOW(SH_type_l2_32_shadow);
>
