From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> [ Upstream commit f60a00d7295057cb4baea5a321501efc72794453 ] Generally, it doesn't make sense to return the recommended maximum number of vCPUs which exceeds the maximum possible number of vCPUs. Note: ARM64 is special as the value returned by KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS differs depending on whether it is a system-wide ioctl or a per-VM one. Previously, KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS didn't have this difference and it seems preferable to keep the status quo. Cap KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS by kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus() which is what gets returned by system-wide KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS. Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> Message-Id: <20211116163443.88707-2-vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> --- arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c index 5bc978be80434..7737a10ba735f 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c @@ -204,7 +204,14 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext) r = 1; break; case KVM_CAP_NR_VCPUS: - r = num_online_cpus(); + /* + * ARM64 treats KVM_CAP_NR_CPUS differently from all other + * architectures, as it does not always bound it to + * KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS. It should not matter much because + * this is just an advisory value. + */ + r = min_t(unsigned int, num_online_cpus(), + kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus()); break; case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS: case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID: -- 2.33.0 _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
