On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:35:05PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08 2017 at 3:34:46 pm BST, Christoffer Dall <cdall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The PMU IRQ number is set through the VCPU device's KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR
> > ioctl handler for the KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_IRQ attribute, but there is no
> > enforced or stated requirement that this must happen after initializing
> > the VGIC. As a result, calling vgic_valid_spi() which relies on the
> > nr_spis being set during the VGIC init can incorrectly fail.
> >
> > Introduce irq_is_spi, which determines if an IRQ number is within the
> > SPI range without verifying it against the actual VGIC properties.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <cdall@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 2 ++
> > virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> > index 131668f..a2ae9d2 100644
> > --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> > +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> > @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@
> > #define KVM_IRQCHIP_NUM_PINS (1020 - 32)
> >
> > #define irq_is_ppi(irq) ((irq) >= VGIC_NR_SGIS && (irq) < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)
> > +#define irq_is_spi(irq) ((irq) >= VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS && \
> > + (irq) <= VGIC_MAX_SPI)
> >
> > enum vgic_type {
> > VGIC_V2, /* Good ol' GICv2 */
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > index 26a42a9..87cb325 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
> > @@ -547,7 +547,7 @@ int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> > return -EFAULT;
> >
> > /* The PMU overflow interrupt can be a PPI or a valid SPI. */
> > - if (!(irq_is_ppi(irq) || vgic_valid_spi(vcpu->kvm, irq)))
> > + if (!(irq_is_ppi(irq) || irq_is_spi(irq)))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > if (!pmu_irq_is_valid(vcpu->kvm, irq))
>
> Does it mean that we can now fail an injection if the SPI is out of the
> range of configured SPIs?
>
> If that's the case, the WARN_ON() in kvm_pmu_update_state() is going to
> fire badly, and that's going to be ugly. Should we add a check for this
> case in kvm_arm_pmu_v3_init()?
>
Yes, we should. How about this fixup?
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
index 5dbaa2c7..fc8a723 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
@@ -458,10 +458,24 @@ int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_enable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
/*
* A valid interrupt configuration for the PMU is either to have a
* properly configured interrupt number and using an in-kernel
- * irqchip, or to neither set an IRQ nor create an in-kernel irqchip.
+ * irqchip, or to not have an in-kernel GIC and not set an IRQ.
*/
- if (kvm_arm_pmu_irq_initialized(vcpu) != irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm))
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm)) {
+ int irq = vcpu->arch.pmu.irq_num;
+ if (!kvm_arm_pmu_irq_initialized(vcpu))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ /*
+ * If we are using an in-kernel vgic, at this point we know
+ * the vgic will be initialized, so we can check the PMU irq
+ * number against the dimensions of the vgic and make sure
+ * it's valid.
+ */
+ if (!irq_is_ppi(irq) && !vgic_valid_spi(vcpu->kvm, irq))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ } else if (kvm_arm_pmu_irq_initialized(vcpu)) {
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
kvm_pmu_vcpu_reset(vcpu);
vcpu->arch.pmu.ready = true;
If you're happy with that, I'll just squash that into the current patch
before applying the series.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
