On Tue, Jan 14, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 07:48:46AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:04:06PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > Abort a dirty ring reset if the current task has a pending signal, as the
> > > > hard limit of INT_MAX entries doesn't ensure KVM will respond to a signal
> > > > in a timely fashion.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: fb04a1eddb1a ("KVM: X86: Implement ring-based dirty memory tracking")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > virt/kvm/dirty_ring.c | 3 +++
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/dirty_ring.c b/virt/kvm/dirty_ring.c
> > > > index 2faf894dec5a..a81ad17d5eef 100644
> > > > --- a/virt/kvm/dirty_ring.c
> > > > +++ b/virt/kvm/dirty_ring.c
> > > > @@ -117,6 +117,9 @@ int kvm_dirty_ring_reset(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_dirty_ring *ring,
> > > > cur_slot = cur_offset = mask = 0;
> > > >
> > > > while (likely((*nr_entries_reset) < INT_MAX)) {
> > > > + if (signal_pending(current))
> > > > + return -EINTR;
> > > Will it break the userspace when a signal is pending? e.g. QEMU might report an
> > > error like
> > > "kvm_dirty_ring_reap_locked: Assertion `ret == total' failed".
> >
> > Ugh. In theory, yes. In practice, I hope not? If it's a potential problem for
> > QEMU, the only idea have is to only react to fatal signals by default, and then
> > let userspace opt-in to reacting to non-fatal signals.
> So, what about just fatal_signal_pending() as in other ioctls in kernel?
Ya, though I would leave the decision up to Peter or Paolo (or someone else that
knows what QEMU wants/prefers/tolerates).
> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> return -EINTR;
