Hi, On 27/09/17 14:28, Eric Auger wrote: > In case the device table save fails, we currently do not > attempt to save the collection table. However it may > happen that the device table fails because the structures > in memory are inconsistent with device GITS_BASER however > this does not mean collection backup can't be performed and > wouldn't succeed. Same on restore path. Without this patch, > after a reset and in case the device table fails in case of > L1 entry not valid, the guest gets stuck on restore. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]> > > --- > > candidate to be CC'ed stable > --- > virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 11 +++-------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c > index 720552c..9e6b556 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c > @@ -2304,12 +2304,9 @@ static int vgic_its_save_tables_v0(struct vgic_its > *its) > } > > ret = vgic_its_save_device_tables(its); > - if (ret) > - goto out; > > - ret = vgic_its_save_collection_table(its); > + ret |= vgic_its_save_collection_table(its); > > -out: > unlock_all_vcpus(kvm); > mutex_unlock(&its->its_lock); > mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock); > @@ -2336,11 +2333,9 @@ static int vgic_its_restore_tables_v0(struct vgic_its > *its) > } > > ret = vgic_its_restore_collection_table(its);
While the save functions above and this _v0 function here all use the standard C return semantics (==0 on success, failure otherwise), vgic_its_restore_collection_table() and the function call below can return 1 if successful, AFAICS. I don't think this handled correctly here? Cheers, Andre. > - if (ret) > - goto out; > > - ret = vgic_its_restore_device_tables(its); > -out: > + ret |= vgic_its_restore_device_tables(its); > + > unlock_all_vcpus(kvm); > mutex_unlock(&its->its_lock); > mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock); >
