Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Don't rely on the wrong pending
 table
To:     Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>, maz@kernel.org,
        james.morse@arm.com, julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com,
        suzuki.poulose@arm.com
Cc:     wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20191029071919.177-1-yuzenghui@huawei.com>
 <20191029071919.177-4-yuzenghui@huawei.com>
From:   Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <5e4d1a2f-7107-efe3-9dde-626662e31ac5@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Oct 2019 13:17:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191029071919.177-4-yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Zenghui, Marc,

On 10/29/19 8:19 AM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> It's possible that two LPIs locate in the same "byte_offset" but target
> two different vcpus, where their pending status are indicated by two
> different pending tables.  In such a scenario, using last_byte_offset
> optimization will lead KVM relying on the wrong pending table entry.
> Let us use last_ptr instead, which can be treated as a byte index into
> a pending table and also, can be vcpu specific.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
> ---
>=20
> If this patch has done the right thing, we can even add the:
>=20
> Fixes: 280771252c1b ("KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_SAVE_PENDING_=
TABLES")
>=20
> But to be honest, I'm not clear about what has this patch actually fixed.
> Pending tables should contain all zeros before we flush vgic_irq's pendin=
g
> status into guest's RAM (thinking that guest should never write anything
> into it). So the pending table entry we've read from the guest memory
> seems always be zero. And we will always do the right thing even if we
> rely on the wrong pending table entry.
>=20
> I think I must have some misunderstanding here... Please fix me.
>=20
>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>=20
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
> index 5ef93e5041e1..7cd2e2f81513 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
> @@ -363,8 +363,8 @@ int vgic_v3_lpi_sync_pending_status(struct kvm *kvm, =
struct vgic_irq *irq)
>  int vgic_v3_save_pending_tables(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
>  =09struct vgic_dist *dist =3D &kvm->arch.vgic;
> -=09int last_byte_offset =3D -1;
>  =09struct vgic_irq *irq;
> +=09gpa_t last_ptr =3D -1;
>  =09int ret;
>  =09u8 val;
> =20
> @@ -384,11 +384,11 @@ int vgic_v3_save_pending_tables(struct kvm *kvm)
>  =09=09bit_nr =3D irq->intid % BITS_PER_BYTE;
>  =09=09ptr =3D pendbase + byte_offset;
> =20
> -=09=09if (byte_offset !=3D last_byte_offset) {
> +=09=09if (ptr !=3D last_ptr) {
>  =09=09=09ret =3D kvm_read_guest_lock(kvm, ptr, &val, 1);
>  =09=09=09if (ret)
>  =09=09=09=09return ret;
> -=09=09=09last_byte_offset =3D byte_offset;
> +=09=09=09last_ptr =3D ptr;
>  =09=09}
> =20
>  =09=09stored =3D val & (1U << bit_nr);
>=20
Acked-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>

Thanks for fixing this.

Eric