Il 29/03/2013 04:25, Zhang, Yang Z ha scritto:
> Paolo Bonzini wrote on 2013-03-26:
>> Il 22/03/2013 06:24, Yang Zhang ha scritto:
>>> +static void rtc_irq_ack_eoi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>> + struct rtc_status *rtc_status, int irq)
>>> +{
>>> + if (irq != RTC_GSI)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + if (test_and_clear_bit(vcpu->vcpu_id, rtc_status->dest_map))
>>> + --rtc_status->pending_eoi;
>>> +
>>> + WARN_ON(rtc_status->pending_eoi < 0);
>>> +}
>>
>> This is the only case where you're passing the struct rtc_status instead
>> of the struct kvm_ioapic. Please use the latter, and make it the first
>> argument.
>>
>>> @@ -244,7 +268,14 @@ static int ioapic_deliver(struct kvm_ioapic *ioapic, int
>> irq)
>>> irqe.level = 1;
>>> irqe.shorthand = 0;
>>> - return kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic(ioapic->kvm, NULL, &irqe, NULL);
>>> + if (irq == RTC_GSI) {
>>> + ret = kvm_irq_delivery_to_apic(ioapic->kvm, NULL, &irqe,
>>> + ioapic->rtc_status.dest_map);
>>> + ioapic->rtc_status.pending_eoi = ret;
>>
>> I think you should either add a
>>
>> BUG_ON(ioapic->rtc_status.pending_eoi != 0);
>> or use "ioapic->rtc_status.pending_eoi += ret" (or both).
>>
> There may malicious guest to write EOI more than once. And the
> pending_eoi will be negative. But it should not be a bug. Just WARN_ON
> is enough. And we already do it in ack_eoi. So don't need to do
> duplicated thing here.
Even WARN_ON is too much if it is guest-triggerable. But then it is
better to make it "+=", I think.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
