On 12/09/2014 04:44 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Userspace assumes that it can wire up IRQ injections after having
> created all VCPUs and after having created the VGIC, but potentially
> before starting the first VCPU. This can currently lead to lost IRQs
> because the state of that IRQ injection is not stored anywhere and we
> don't return an error to userspace.
>
> We haven't seen this problem manifest itself yet,
Actually we did with VFIO signaling setup before VGIC init!
presumably because
> guests reset the devices on boot, but this could cause issues with
> migration and other non-standard startup configurations.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index c98cc6b..feef015 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@ -1693,8 +1693,13 @@ out:
> int kvm_vgic_inject_irq(struct kvm *kvm, int cpuid, unsigned int irq_num,
> bool level)
> {
> - if (likely(vgic_ready(kvm)) &&
> - vgic_update_irq_pending(kvm, cpuid, irq_num, level))
> + if (unlikely(!vgic_initialized(kvm))) {
> + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> + vgic_init(kvm);
> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> + }
I was previously encouraged to test the virtual interrupt controller
readiness when setting irqfd up(proposal made in
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/3/601). I guess this becomes useless now,
correct? Reviewed-by on the whole series.
Eric
> +
> + if (vgic_update_irq_pending(kvm, cpuid, irq_num, level))
> vgic_kick_vcpus(kvm);
>
> return 0;
>
--
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
