On 18.12.2012, at 23:54, Scott Wood wrote: > On 12/18/2012 06:38:41 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> When we hit an emulation result that we didn't expect, that is an error, >> but it's nothing that warrants a BUG(), because it can be guest triggered. >> So instead, let's only WARN() the user that this happened. >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> >> --- >> arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c | 3 ++- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c >> index be83fca..e2225e5 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c >> @@ -237,7 +237,8 @@ int kvmppc_emulate_mmio(struct kvm_run *run, struct >> kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> r = RESUME_HOST; >> break; >> default: >> - BUG(); >> + WARN_ON(1); >> + r = RESUME_GUEST; > > Do you have a specific way of a guest triggering this in mind, or is it just > being cautious? The guest probably shouldn't be allowed to spam the kernel > log with WARNs either. Is a traceback even useful here?
For debugging, yes. But maybe we would be better off with a trace point. Anyway, a WARN is better than a BUG either way for now. I was able to provoke this by live patching an instruction without flushing the icache, so that the last_inst instruction fetch gets a different instruction from the instruction that resulted in the trap we're currently in. Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
