Hi Marc,
On 15/11/16 14:41, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> On 15/11/16 14:27, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> The GICv2 spec says in section 4.3.12 that a "CPU targets field bit that
>> corresponds to an unimplemented CPU interface is RAZ/WI."
>> Currently we allow the guest to write any value in there and it can
>> read that back.
>> Mask the written value with the proper CPU mask to be spec compliant.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com>
>> ---
>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c
>> b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c
>> index b44b359..e59d4c7 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v2.c
>> @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ static void vgic_mmio_write_target(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> unsigned long val)
>> {
>> u32 intid = VGIC_ADDR_TO_INTID(addr, 8);
>> + u8 cpu_mask = (1 << atomic_read(&vcpu->kvm->online_vcpus)) - 1;
>
> For the sake of avoiding open-coding things, how about using GENMASK?
Yes.
>
>> int i;
>>
>> /* GICD_ITARGETSR[0-7] are read-only */
>> @@ -141,7 +142,7 @@ static void vgic_mmio_write_target(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>
>> spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
>>
>> - irq->targets = (val >> (i * 8)) & 0xff;
>> + irq->targets = ((val >> (i * 8)) & 0xff) & cpu_mask;
>
> Can't you just drop the '& 0xff' part, since cpu_mask is guaranteed to
> be more restrictive?
Well, and also irq->targets is an u8 ...
Fixed both.
Thanks!
Andre.
>> target = irq->targets ? __ffs(irq->targets) : 0;
>> irq->target_vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(vcpu->kvm, target);
>>
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
