On 3/13/20 12:18 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 3/13/20 9:38 AM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>> On 3/13/20 9:25 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>>> Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Previously all fields of structure kvm_lapic_irq were not initialized
>>>>> before it was passed to kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus(). Which will cause
>>>>> an issue when any of those fields are used for processing a request.
>>>>> For example not initializing the msi_redir_hint field before passing
>>>>> to the kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus(), may lead to a misbehavior of
>>>>> kvm_apic_map_get_dest_lapic(). This will specifically happen when the
>>>>> kvm_lowest_prio_delivery() returns TRUE due to a non-zero garbage
>>>>> value of msi_redir_hint, which should not happen as the request belongs
>>>>> to APIC fixed delivery mode and we do not want to deliver the
>>>>> interrupt only to the lowest priority candidate.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch initializes all the fields of kvm_lapic_irq based on the
>>>>> values of ioapic redirect_entry object before passing it on to
>>>>> kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus().
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 7ee30bc132c6("KVM: x86: deliver KVM IOAPIC scan request to target vCPUs")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c | 7 +++++--
>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c
>>>>> index 7668fed..3a8467d 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/ioapic.c
>>>>> @@ -378,12 +378,15 @@ static void ioapic_write_indirect(struct kvm_ioapic *ioapic, u32 val)
>>>>> if (e->fields.delivery_mode == APIC_DM_FIXED) {
>>>>> struct kvm_lapic_irq irq;
>>>>>
>>>>> - irq.shorthand = APIC_DEST_NOSHORT;
>>>>> irq.vector = e->fields.vector;
>>>>> irq.delivery_mode = e->fields.delivery_mode << 8;
>>>>> - irq.dest_id = e->fields.dest_id;
>>>>> irq.dest_mode =
>>>>> kvm_lapic_irq_dest_mode(!!e->fields.dest_mode);
>>>>> + irq.level = 1;
>>>> 'level' is bool in struct kvm_lapic_irq but other than that, is there a
>>>> reason we set it to 'true' here? I understand that any particular
>>>> setting is likely better than random
>>> Yes, that is the only reason which I had in my mind while doing this change.
>>> I was not particularly sure about the value, so I copied what ioapic_serivce()
>>> is doing.
>> Do you think I should skip setting this here?
>>
> Personally, i'd initialize it to 'false': usualy, if something is not
> properly initialized it's either 0 or garbage)
I think that's true, initializing it to 'false' might make more sense.
Any other concerns or comments that I can improve?
>
>>>> and it should actually not be used
>>>> without setting it first but still?
>>>>
>>>>> + irq.trig_mode = e->fields.trig_mode;
>>>>> + irq.shorthand = APIC_DEST_NOSHORT;
>>>>> + irq.dest_id = e->fields.dest_id;
>>>>> + irq.msi_redir_hint = false;
>>>>> bitmap_zero(&vcpu_bitmap, 16);
>>>>> kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus(ioapic->kvm, &irq,
>>>>> &vcpu_bitmap);
--
Nitesh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
