2017-10-13 19:31+0200, Christoffer Dall: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 07:13:07PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote: > > I think that other (special) callsites of vcpu_load()/vcpu_put() have a > > well defined IOCTL that can be used instead of vcpu->ioctl, so we could > > just pass the ioctl value all the way to arch code and never save it > > anywhere, > > I don't think that works; what would you do with preempt notifier calls?
Right, BUG :), I didn't consider them before and they need to know. > One solution is to add a parameter to vcpu_put, lie for vcpu_load, which > also sets the ioctl, and other callers than the final vcpu_put in > kvm_vcpu_ioctl() just pass the existing value, where the kvm_vcpu_ioctl > call can pass 0 which gets set before releasing the mutex. > > Can you think of a more elegant solution? Not really, only thought of touching preempt notifiers and it seems to be more complicated. I think we shouldn't restore ioctl on vcpu_put() at all -- the value isn't well defined outside of the mutex, so there is no point in looking and we can just zero the ioctl. Actually, I wouldn't rely on the existing value at all because that. The need for load/put depends on the current code path, not on the one we race with. x86 seems to be the only user of vcpu_load() outside of kvm_vcpu_ioctl() and the callers are either under a VM ioctl or under a VM destruction paths (invalid IOCTL) and we can just hardcode that. Passing 0 to all other vcpu_load()s and unconditionally zeroing ioctl before mutex_unlock() should work. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
