| Message ID | 1462531568-9799-12-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 06/05/16 11:45, Andre Przywara wrote: > Currently the PMU uses a member of the struct vgic_dist directly, > which not only breaks abstraction, but will fail with the new VGIC. > Abstract this access in the VGIC header file. > > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> M.
Hi Andre, On 05/06/2016 12:45 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: > Currently the PMU uses a member of the struct vgic_dist directly, > which not only breaks abstraction, but will fail with the new VGIC. > Abstract this access in the VGIC header file. > > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> > --- > include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 2 ++ > virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h > index 452bb85..c14ff77 100644 > --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h > +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h > @@ -347,6 +347,8 @@ bool kvm_vgic_map_is_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned int virt_irq); > #define irqchip_in_kernel(k) (!!((k)->arch.vgic.in_kernel)) > #define vgic_initialized(k) (!!((k)->arch.vgic.nr_cpus)) > #define vgic_ready(k) ((k)->arch.vgic.ready) > +#define vgic_valid_spi(k, i) (((i) >= VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS) && \ > + ((i) < (k)->arch.vgic.nr_irqs)) > > int vgic_v2_probe(struct device_node *vgic_node, > const struct vgic_ops **ops, > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c > index 575c7aa..bd2e872 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c > @@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_device_attr *attr) > * the interrupt number is the same for all vcpus, while as an > * SPI it must be a separate number per vcpu. > */ > - if (irq < VGIC_NR_SGIS || irq >= vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.nr_irqs || > + if (irq < VGIC_NR_SGIS || !vgic_valid_spi(vcpu->kvm, irq) || > !irq_is_valid(vcpu->kvm, irq, irq < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)) > return -EINVAL; > > in case this is a PPI it will now return an error, right? I don't think this is what we expect. Cheers Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 10/05/16 10:52, Eric Auger wrote: > Hi Andre, > On 05/06/2016 12:45 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: >> Currently the PMU uses a member of the struct vgic_dist directly, >> which not only breaks abstraction, but will fail with the new VGIC. >> Abstract this access in the VGIC header file. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> >> --- >> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 2 ++ >> virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h >> index 452bb85..c14ff77 100644 >> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h >> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h >> @@ -347,6 +347,8 @@ bool kvm_vgic_map_is_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned int virt_irq); >> #define irqchip_in_kernel(k) (!!((k)->arch.vgic.in_kernel)) >> #define vgic_initialized(k) (!!((k)->arch.vgic.nr_cpus)) >> #define vgic_ready(k) ((k)->arch.vgic.ready) >> +#define vgic_valid_spi(k, i) (((i) >= VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS) && \ >> + ((i) < (k)->arch.vgic.nr_irqs)) >> >> int vgic_v2_probe(struct device_node *vgic_node, >> const struct vgic_ops **ops, >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c >> index 575c7aa..bd2e872 100644 >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c >> @@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_device_attr *attr) >> * the interrupt number is the same for all vcpus, while as an >> * SPI it must be a separate number per vcpu. >> */ >> - if (irq < VGIC_NR_SGIS || irq >= vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.nr_irqs || >> + if (irq < VGIC_NR_SGIS || !vgic_valid_spi(vcpu->kvm, irq) || >> !irq_is_valid(vcpu->kvm, irq, irq < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> > in case this is a PPI it will now return an error, right? I don't think > this is what we expect. Ouch. Good catch. I missed the ! too... Thanks, M.
diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h index 452bb85..c14ff77 100644 --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h @@ -347,6 +347,8 @@ bool kvm_vgic_map_is_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned int virt_irq); #define irqchip_in_kernel(k) (!!((k)->arch.vgic.in_kernel)) #define vgic_initialized(k) (!!((k)->arch.vgic.nr_cpus)) #define vgic_ready(k) ((k)->arch.vgic.ready) +#define vgic_valid_spi(k, i) (((i) >= VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS) && \ + ((i) < (k)->arch.vgic.nr_irqs)) int vgic_v2_probe(struct device_node *vgic_node, const struct vgic_ops **ops, diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c index 575c7aa..bd2e872 100644 --- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c @@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_device_attr *attr) * the interrupt number is the same for all vcpus, while as an * SPI it must be a separate number per vcpu. */ - if (irq < VGIC_NR_SGIS || irq >= vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.nr_irqs || + if (irq < VGIC_NR_SGIS || !vgic_valid_spi(vcpu->kvm, irq) || !irq_is_valid(vcpu->kvm, irq, irq < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)) return -EINVAL;
Currently the PMU uses a member of the struct vgic_dist directly, which not only breaks abstraction, but will fail with the new VGIC. Abstract this access in the VGIC header file. Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> --- include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 2 ++ virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)