On 8/4/24 17:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:04:11PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 8/4/24 12:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:14:39AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 4/4/24 21:13, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Replace qemu_bh_new_guarded() by virtio_bh_new_guarded()
so the bus and device use the same guard. Otherwise the
DMA-reentrancy protection can be bypassed.
Cc: qemu-sta...@nongnu.org
Suggested-by: Alexander Bulekov <alx...@bu.edu>
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org>
---
hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c b/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c
index 016aba6374..cd0e3a11f7 100644
--- a/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c
+++ b/hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c
@@ -985,8 +985,7 @@ static void virtser_port_device_realize(DeviceState *dev,
Error **errp)
return;
}
- port->bh = qemu_bh_new_guarded(flush_queued_data_bh, port,
- &dev->mem_reentrancy_guard);
+ port->bh = virtio_bh_new_guarded(vdev, flush_queued_data_bh, port);
Missing:
-- >8 --
- port->bh = virtio_bh_new_guarded(vdev, flush_queued_data_bh, port);
+ port->bh = virtio_bh_new_guarded(VIRTIO_DEVICE(dev),
+ flush_queued_data_bh, port);
---
I don't get it. vdev is already the correct type. Why do you need
VIRTIO_DEVICE here?
This function doesn't declare vdev.
port->elem = NULL;
}
But it seems clear it wasn't really tested, right?
Indeed, I only tested virtio-gpu, then added the other ones Alexander
suggested. I don't have virtio-specific tests, I rely on the GitLab CI
ones. Hope that's enough.
Philipe here's my ack:
Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
Feel free to merge these after testing.
Sure, thanks!
Phil.