On 12/09/2014 04:44 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote: > When the vgic initializes its internal state it does so based on the > number of VCPUs available at the time. If we allow KVM to create more > VCPUs after the VGIC has been initialized, we are likely to error out in > unfortunate ways later, perform buffer overflows etc. > > Cc: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > This replaces Eric Auger's previous patch > (https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2014-December/012646.html), > because it fits better with testing to include it in this series and I > realized that we need to add a check against irqchip_in_kernel() as > well. > > arch/arm/kvm/arm.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c > index a9d005f..d4da244 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c > @@ -213,6 +213,11 @@ struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int id) > int err; > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu; > > + if (irqchip_in_kernel(kvm) && vgic_initialized(kvm)) { Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> a question about that irqchip_in_kernel(kvm): kvm->arch.vgic.in_kernel is set in kvm_vgic_create but nobody resets it, especially in destroy, am i wrong? if the vgic is initialized shouldn't it be also created? Shouldn't we test irqchip_in_kernel in vgic_init instead? Also in case we need irqchip_in_kernel(kvm) here we might need it also in kvm_vgic_inject_irq because dist->lock is grabbed in vgic_update_irq_pending. Eric > + err = -EBUSY; > + goto out; > + } > + > vcpu = kmem_cache_zalloc(kvm_vcpu_cache, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!vcpu) { > err = -ENOMEM; > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
