Hi Alexandru,
On 1/20/21 4:56 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 1/14/21 10:02 AM, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Alexandru,
>>
>> On 1/12/21 3:55 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>> has_run_once is set to true at the beginning of
>>>> kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(). This generally is not an issue
>>>> except when exercising the code with KVM selftests. Indeed,
>>>> if kvm_vgic_map_resources() fails due to erroneous user settings,
>>>> has_run_once is set and this prevents from continuing
>>>> executing the test. This patch moves the assignment after the
>>>> kvm_vgic_map_resources().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 ++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>>> index c0ffb019ca8b..331fae6bff31 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>>> @@ -540,8 +540,6 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> if (!kvm_arm_vcpu_is_finalized(vcpu))
>>>> return -EPERM;
>>>>
>>>> - vcpu->arch.has_run_once = true;
>>>> -
>>>> if (likely(irqchip_in_kernel(kvm))) {
>>>> /*
>>>> * Map the VGIC hardware resources before running a vcpu the
>>>> @@ -560,6 +558,8 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> static_branch_inc(&userspace_irqchip_in_use);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + vcpu->arch.has_run_once = true;
>>> I have a few concerns regarding this:
>>>
>>> 1. Moving has_run_once = true here seems very arbitrary to me - kvm_timer_enable()
>>> and kvm_arm_pmu_v3_enable(), below it, can both fail because of erroneous user
>>> values. If there's a reason why the assignment cannot be moved at the end of the
>>> function, I think it should be clearly stated in a comment for the people who
>>> might be tempted to write similar tests for the timer or pmu.
>> Setting has_run_once = true at the entry of the function looks to me
>> even more arbitrary. I agree with you that eventually has_run_once may
>
> Or it could be it's there to prevent the user from calling
> kvm_vgic_map_resources() a second time after it failed. This is what I'm concerned
> about and I think deserves more investigation.
I have reworked my kvm selftests to live without that change.
Thanks
Eric
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>> be moved at the very end but maybe this can be done later once timer,
>> pmu tests haven ben written
>>> 2. There are many ways that kvm_vgic_map_resources() can fail, other than
>>> incorrect user settings. I started digging into how
>>> kvm_vgic_map_resources()->vgic_v2_map_resources() can fail for a VGIC V2 and this
>>> is what I managed to find before I gave up:
>>>
>>> * vgic_init() can fail in:
>>> - kvm_vgic_dist_init()
>>> - vgic_v3_init()
>>> - kvm_vgic_setup_default_irq_routing()
>>> * vgic_register_dist_iodev() can fail in:
>>> - vgic_v3_init_dist_iodev()
>>> - kvm_io_bus_register_dev()(*)
>>> * kvm_phys_addr_ioremap() can fail in:
>>> - kvm_mmu_topup_memory_cache()
>>> - kvm_pgtable_stage2_map()
>> I changed the commit msg so that "incorrect user settings" sounds as an
>> example.
>>> So if any of the functions below fail, are we 100% sure it is safe to allow the
>>> user to execute kvm_vgic_map_resources() again?
>> I think additional tests will confirm this. However at the moment,
>> moving the assignment, which does not look wrong to me, allows to
>> greatly simplify the tests so I would tend to say that it is worth.
>>> (*) It looks to me like kvm_io_bus_register_dev() doesn't take into account a
>>> caller that tries to register the same device address range and it will create
>>> another identical range. Is this intentional? Is it a bug that should be fixed? Or
>>> am I misunderstanding the function?
>> doesn't kvm_io_bus_cmp() do the check?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Eric
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alex
>>>> +
>>>> ret = kvm_timer_enable(vcpu);
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> return ret;
>
