On 29.11.2017 18:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 29/11/2017 18:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 29.11.2017 17:41, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> As we're about to call vcpu_load() from architecture-specific
>>> implementations of the KVM vcpu ioctls, but yet we access data
>>> structures protected by the vcpu->mutex in the generic code, factor
>>> this logic out from vcpu_load().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 4 +---
>>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 20 +++++++-------------
>>> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 +-
>>> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 17 ++++++-----------
>>> 4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>>> index 714a067..e7c46d2 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>>> @@ -9559,10 +9559,8 @@ static void vmx_switch_vmcs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct loaded_vmcs *vmcs)
>>> static void vmx_free_vcpu_nested(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>> {
>>> struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
>>> - int r;
>>>
>>> - r = vcpu_load(vcpu);
>>> - BUG_ON(r);
>>> + vcpu_load(vcpu);
>> I am most likely missing something, why don't we have to take the lock
>> in these cases?
>
> See earlier discussion, at these points there can be no concurrent
> access; the file descriptor is not accessible yet, or is already gone.
>
> Paolo
Thanks, this belongs into the patch description then.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
