> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 7:38 PM
> To: Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; yangbo.lu@xxxxxxx; john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx;
> tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx; sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx;
> maz@xxxxxxxxxx; richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx; Mark Rutland
> <Mark.Rutland@xxxxxxx>; Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@xxxxxxx>;
> Steven Price <Steven.Price@xxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@xxxxxxx>; Kaly Xin
> <Kaly.Xin@xxxxxxx>; Justin He <Justin.He@xxxxxxx>; Wei Chen
> <Wei.Chen@xxxxxxx>; nd <nd@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/9] arm/arm64: KVM: Advertise KVM UID to guests
> via SMCCC
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 03:45:37AM +0000, Jianyong Wu wrote:
> > > From: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > We can advertise ourselves to guests as KVM and provide a basic
> > > features bitmap for discoverability of future hypervisor services.
> > >
> > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > > b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c index 550dfa3e53cd..db6dce3d0e23
> > > 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > > @@ -12,13 +12,13 @@
> > > int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {
> > > u32 func_id = smccc_get_function(vcpu);
> > > - long val = SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED;
> > > + u32 val[4] = {SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED};
> >
> > There is a risk as this u32 value will return here and a u64 value
> > will be obtained in guest. For example, The val[0] is initialized as
> > -1 of 0xffffffff and the guest get 0xffffffff then it will be compared
> > with -1 of 0xffffffffffffffff Also this problem exists for the
> > transfer of address in u64 type. So the following assignment to "val"
> > should be split into two
> > u32 value and assign to val[0] and val[1] respectively.
> > WDYT?
>
> Yes, I think you're right that this is a bug, but isn't the solution just to make
> that an array of 'long'?
>
> long val [4];
>
> That will sign-extend the negative error codes as required, while leaving the
> explicitly unsigned UID constants alone.
Ok, that's much better. I will fix it at next version.
By the way, I wonder when will you update this patch set. I see someone like me
adopt this patch set as code base and need rebase it every time, so expect your update.
Thanks
Jianyong
>
> Will
