On Fri, Jun 02, 2023, Michal Luczaj wrote: > On 6/2/23 03:20, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 21:52:33 +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > >> Current KVM_BUG and KVM_BUG_ON assume that 'cond' passed from callers is > >> 32-bit as it casts 'cond' to the type of int. This will be wrong if 'cond' > >> provided by a caller is 64-bit, e.g. an error code of 0xc0000d0300000000 > >> will be converted to 0, which is not expected. > >> > >> Improves the implementation by using bool in KVM_BUG and KVM_BUG_ON. > >> 'bool' is preferred to 'int' as __ret is essentially used as a boolean > >> and coding-stytle.rst documents that use of bool is encouraged to improve > >> readability and is often a better option than 'int' for storing boolean > >> values. > >> > >> [...] > > > > Applied to kvm-x86 generic, thanks! > > > > [1/1] KVM: allow KVM_BUG/KVM_BUG_ON to handle 64-bit cond > > https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/c9d601548603 > > I guess this makes the !! in kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu() unnecessary: > > KVM_BUG_ON(!!xa_store(&kvm->vcpu_array, vcpu->vcpu_idx, vcpu, 0)... Ya, I saw that, which in addition to Wei's ping, is what reminded me that the KVM_BUG_ON() fix hadn't been merged. > Is it worth a patch (perhaps along with chopping off !! in > kvm_msr_allowed() and few other places)? Yes, I think so.
