Messages in this thread | | | From | Jim Mattson <> | Date | Fri, 13 May 2022 13:27:25 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86/mmu: Comment FNAME(sync_page) to document TLB flushing logic |
| |
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 12:50 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote: > > Add a comment to FNAME(sync_page) to explain why the TLB flushing logic > conspiculously doesn't handle the scenario of guest protections being > reduced. Specifically, if synchronizing a SPTE drops execute protections, > KVM will not emit a TLB flush, whereas dropping writable or clearing A/D > bits does trigger a flush via mmu_spte_update(). Architecturally, until > the GPTE is implicitly or explicitly flushed from the guest's perspective, > KVM is not required to flush any old, stale translations. > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> > --- Reviewed-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
| |