On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 07:43:15PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> We will have different KVM devices for interrupts, one for the
> XICS-over-XIVE mode and one for the XIVE native exploitation
> mode. Let's add some checks to make sure we are not mixing the
> interfaces in KVM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_xive.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_xive.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_xive.c
> index f78d002f0fe0..8a4fa45f07f8 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_xive.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_xive.c
> @@ -819,6 +819,9 @@ u64 kvmppc_xive_get_icp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> struct kvmppc_xive_vcpu *xc = vcpu->arch.xive_vcpu;
>
> + if (!kvmppc_xics_enabled(vcpu))
> + return -EPERM;
> +
> if (!xc)
> return 0;
>
> @@ -835,6 +838,9 @@ int kvmppc_xive_set_icp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 icpval)
> u8 cppr, mfrr;
> u32 xisr;
>
> + if (!kvmppc_xics_enabled(vcpu))
> + return -EPERM;
> +
> if (!xc || !xive)
> return -ENOENT;
I can't see how these new checks could ever trigger in the code as it
stands. Is there a way at present? Do following patches ever add a
path where the new checks could trigger, or is this just an excess of
caution? (Your patch description should ideally have answered these
questions for me.)
Paul.
