On 22/09/16 15:01, Vijay Kilari wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 20/09/16 07:12, vijay.kilari@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> From: Vijaya Kumar K <Vijaya.Kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> +static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
>>> + gpa_t addr, u32 *val)
>>> +{
>>> + struct vgic_io_device *iodev = kvm_to_vgic_iodev(dev);
>>> + const struct vgic_register_region *region;
>>> + struct kvm_vcpu *r_vcpu;
>>> +
>>> + region = vgic_get_mmio_region(iodev, addr, sizeof(u32));
>>> + if (!region) {
>>> + *val = 0;
>>> + return 0;
>>
>> This is not the previous semantic of vgic_uaccess, and I cannot see why
>> blindly ignoring an access to an undefined region would be acceptable.
>> What am I missing?
>
> AFAIK, the vgic_uaccess is not making any check on undefined region/register.
> However, dispatch_mmio_read/write are returning 0 if check of region is failed
Hmmm. Fair enough. I don't really like it, but that's something for
another day.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
