On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 05:35:26PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 04:48:19PM +0000, Sebastian Ene wrote: > > The rule inside kvm enforces that the vcpu->mutex is taken *inside* > > kvm->lock. The rule is violated by the pkvm_create_hyp_vm which acquires Hi Oliver, > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > nit: always suffix function names with '()' > > > the kvm->lock while already holding the vcpu->mutex lock from > > kvm_vcpu_ioctl. Follow the rule by taking the config lock while getting the > > VM handle and make sure that this is cleaned on VM destroy under the > > same lock. > > It is always better to describe a lock in terms of what data it > protects, the critical section(s) are rather obvious here. > > Avoid the circular locking dependency altogether by protecting the hyp > vm handle with the config_lock, much like we already do for other > forms of VM-scoped data. > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > nitpicks aside, this looks fine. > > Reviewed-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> > Thanks for the suggestions, I updated the comit message and I will push a V2 of the patch with the above and the Reviewed-by tag. Thanks, Seb > -- > Thanks, > Oliver
