Hi Wei,
On 27/02/15 11:41, weiyj_lk@xxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Add the missing unlock before return from function kvm_vgic_create()
> in the error handling case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index 0cc6ab6..4b2c2e7 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@ -1583,8 +1583,10 @@ int kvm_vgic_create(struct kvm *kvm, u32 type)
> * emulation. So check this here again. KVM_CREATE_DEVICE does
> * the proper checks already.
> */
> - if (type == KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V2 && !vgic->can_emulate_gicv2)
> - return -ENODEV;
> + if (type == KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V2 && !vgic->can_emulate_gicv2) {
> + ret = -ENODEV;
> + goto out;
> + }
Ah, good catch. Embarrassing that that could slip through ...
Acked-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
Out of curiosity: did you see it hang or was this just by looking at the
code? I thought that I tested this case ...
Cheers,
Andre.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
