On Thu, Jan 25, 2024, moehanabi wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024, Brilliant Hanabi wrote: > > > As the kvm api(https://docs.kernel.org/virt/kvm/api.html) reads, > > > KVM_CREATE_PIT2 call is only valid after enabling in-kernel irqchip > > > support via KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP. > > > > > > Without this check, I can create PIT first and enable irqchip-split > > > then, which may cause the PIT invalid because of lacking of in-kernel > > > PIC to inject the interrupt. > > > > Does this cause actual problems beyond the PIT not working for the guest? E.g. > > does it put the host kernel at risk? If the only problem is that the PIT doesn't > > work as expected, I'm tempted to tweak the docs to say that KVM's PIT emulation > > won't work without an in-kernel I/O APIC. Rejecting the ioctl could theoertically > > break misconfigured setups that happen to work, e.g. because the guest never uses > > the PIT. > > I don't think it will put the host kernel at risk. But that's exactly what > kvmtool does: it creates in-kernel PIT first and set KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP then. Right. My concern, which could be unfounded paranoia, is that rejecting an ioctl() that used to succeed could break existing setups. E.g. if a userspace VMM creates a PIT and checks the ioctl() result, but its guest(s) never actually use the PIT and so don't care that the PIT is busted. > I found this problem because I was working on implementing a userspace PIC > and PIT in kvmtool. As I planned, I'm going to commit a related patch to > kvmtool if this patch will be applied. > > > > Signed-off-by: Brilliant Hanabi <moehanabichan@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > > > index 27e23714e960..3edc8478310f 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > > > @@ -7016,6 +7016,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int ioctl, unsigned long arg) > > > r = -EEXIST; > > > if (kvm->arch.vpit) > > > goto create_pit_unlock; > > > + if (!pic_in_kernel(kvm)) > > > + goto create_pit_unlock; > > > > -EEXIST is not an appropriate errno. > > Which errno do you think is better? Maybe ENOENT?
