Normally, LAM and SVA are mutually exclusive. LAM enabling will fail if
SVA is already in use.
Correct error code for the failure. EINTR is nonsensical there.
Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 23e5d9ec2bab ("x86/mm/iommu/sva: Make LAM and SVA mutually exclusive")
Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
index 74c7e84a94d8..c7dfd727c9ec 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
@@ -760,7 +760,7 @@ static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long nr_bits)
if (mm_valid_pasid(mm) &&
!test_bit(MM_CONTEXT_FORCE_TAGGED_SVA, &mm->context.flags))
- return -EINTR;
+ return -EINVAL;
if (mmap_write_lock_killable(mm))
return -EINTR;
--
2.39.2
