On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:20:10PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > index a436373..31a351a 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > @@ -1840,7 +1840,7 @@ static int emulate_cp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >
> > r = find_reg(params, table, num);
> >
> > - if (r) {
> > + if (likely(r) && sys_reg_present(vcpu, r)) {
> > perform_access(vcpu, params, r);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -2016,7 +2016,7 @@ static int emulate_sys_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > if (!r)
> > r = find_reg(params, sys_reg_descs, ARRAY_SIZE(sys_reg_descs));
> >
> > - if (likely(r)) {
> > + if (likely(r) && sys_reg_present(vcpu, r)) {
> > perform_access(vcpu, params, r);
> > } else {
> > kvm_err("Unsupported guest sys_reg access at: %lx\n",
>
> This looks a bit fishy, because it seems that now a guest can be
> configured in such a way that it can access non-present emulated system
> registers and get the host to tell the operator that the KVM instance
> running on the system doesn't really support the hardware...
Hmmm, looks like I just blindly adapted the if () condition without
looking at the context here.
I'll take a look at it.
[...]
Cheers
---Dave
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
