On 08/06/17 16:18, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> 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.
Yup, looks good to me! For the squashed version:
Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
