3.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.d...@linaro.org>
commit 6b50f54064a02b77a7b990032b80234fee59bcd6 upstream.
If we detect another vCPU is running we just exit and return 0 as if we
succesfully created the VGIC, but the VGIC wouldn't actual be created.
This shouldn't break in-kernel behavior because the kernel will not
observe the failed the attempt to create the VGIC, but userspace could
be rightfully confused.
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.d...@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.z...@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
---
virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
@@ -1611,7 +1611,7 @@ out:
int kvm_vgic_create(struct kvm *kvm)
{
- int i, vcpu_lock_idx = -1, ret = 0;
+ int i, vcpu_lock_idx = -1, ret;
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
@@ -1626,6 +1626,7 @@ int kvm_vgic_create(struct kvm *kvm)
* vcpu->mutex. By grabbing the vcpu->mutex of all VCPUs we ensure
* that no other VCPUs are run while we create the vgic.
*/
+ ret = -EBUSY;
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
if (!mutex_trylock(&vcpu->mutex))
goto out_unlock;
@@ -1633,11 +1634,10 @@ int kvm_vgic_create(struct kvm *kvm)
}
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
- if (vcpu->arch.has_run_once) {
- ret = -EBUSY;
+ if (vcpu->arch.has_run_once)
goto out_unlock;
- }
}
+ ret = 0;
spin_lock_init(&kvm->arch.vgic.lock);
kvm->arch.vgic.vctrl_base = vgic_vctrl_base;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
