On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 04:55:51PM +0100, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 02:40:38PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > If we fail to allocate the 'supported_cpus' cpumask in kvm_arch_init_vm()
> > then be sure to return -ENOMEM instead of success (0) on the failure
> > path.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > index 523bc934fe2f..775b52871b51 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > @@ -146,8 +146,10 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
> > if (ret)
> > goto out_free_stage2_pgd;
> >
> > - if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&kvm->arch.supported_cpus, GFP_KERNEL))
> > + if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&kvm->arch.supported_cpus, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > goto out_free_stage2_pgd;
> > + }
> > cpumask_copy(kvm->arch.supported_cpus, cpu_possible_mask);
> >
> > kvm_vgic_early_init(kvm);
>
> Thank you for the fix:
>
> Reviewed-by: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx>
Thanks!
> This can go in independent of the series. I can send it after rc1 if you
> prefer to focus on something else.
Cheers, but I reckon I'll post the first 6 patches as their own series at
-rc1 anyway.
Will
