On 09/08/19 17:59, Adalbert Lazăr wrote:
>
> + reply->padding2);
> +
> + ivcpu->reply_waiting = false;
> + return expected->error;
> +}
> +
> /*
Is this missing a wakeup?
>
> +static bool need_to_wait(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + struct kvmi_vcpu *ivcpu = IVCPU(vcpu);
> +
> + return ivcpu->reply_waiting;
> +}
> +
Do you actually need this function? It seems to me that everywhere you
call it you already have an ivcpu, so you can just access the field.
Also, "reply_waiting" means "there is a reply that is waiting". What
you mean is "waiting_for_reply".
The overall structure of the jobs code is confusing. The same function
kvm_run_jobs_and_wait is an infinite loop before and gets a "break"
later. It is also not clear why kvmi_job_wait is called through a job.
Can you have instead just kvm_run_jobs in KVM_REQ_INTROSPECTION, and
something like this instead when sending an event:
int kvmi_wait_for_reply(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
struct kvmi_vcpu *ivcpu = IVCPU(vcpu);
while (ivcpu->waiting_for_reply) {
kvmi_run_jobs(vcpu);
err = swait_event_killable(*wq,
!ivcpu->waiting_for_reply ||
!list_empty(&ivcpu->job_list));
if (err)
return -EINTR;
}
return 0;
}
?
Paolo
