[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <04fb4fe9-017a-dcbb-6f18-0f6fd970bc99@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:37:56 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/61] KVM: x86: Refactor loop around do_cpuid_func() to
separate helper
On 07/02/20 20:53, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>
>> 2) Return -EINVAL instead.
> I agree that it _should_ be -EINVAL, but I just don't think it's worth
> the possibility of breaking (stupid) userspace that was doing something
> like:
>
> for (i = 0; i < max_cpuid_size; i++) {
> cpuid.nent = i;
>
> r = ioctl(fd, KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, &cpuid);
> if (!r || r != -E2BIG)
> break;
> }
>
Apart from the stupidity of the above case, why would it be EINVAL?
I can do the change to drop the initializer when applying.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists