[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18baa777-7f28-8f57-e815-11175bf4c59a@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:21:40 +0800
From: Zhenyu Ye <yezhenyu2@...wei.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC: "S. Tsirkin, Michael" <mst@...hat.com>, <gleb@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
Xiexiangyou <xiexiangyou@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] the check of ioeventfd collision in
kvm_*assign_ioeventfd_idx
On 2020/7/31 14:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 31/07/20 08:39, Zhenyu Ye wrote:
>> On 2020/7/31 2:03, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Yes, I think it's not needed. Probably the deassign check can be turned into an assertion?
>>>
>>> Paolo
>>>
>>
>> I think we can do this in the same function, and turnt he check of
>> p->eventfd into assertion in kvm_deassign_ioeventfd_idx(). Just like:
>>
>> ---8<---
>> static inline struct _ioeventfd *
>> get_ioeventfd(struct kvm *kvm, enum kvm_bus bus_idx,
>> struct kvm_ioeventfd *args)
>> {
>> static struct _ioeventfd *_p;
>> bool wildcard = !(args->flags & KVM_IOEVENTFD_FLAG_DATAMATCH);
>>
>> list_for_each_entry(_p, &kvm->ioeventfds, list)
>> if (_p->bus_idx == bus_idx &&
>> _p->addr == args->addr &&
>> (!_p->length || !args->len ||
>> (_p->length == args->len &&
>> (_p->wildcard || wildcard ||
>> _p->datamatch == args->datamatch))))
>> return _p;
>>
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> kvm_deassign_ioeventfd_idx() {
>> ...
>> p = get_ioeventfd(kvm, bus_idx, args);
>> if (p) {
>> assert(p->eventfd == eventfd);
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> ---8<----
>>
>> This may be easier to understand (keep the same logic in assign/deassign).
>
> I think you should also warn if:
>
> 1) p->length != args->len
>
> 2) p->wildcard != args->wildcard if p->length
>
> 3) p->datamatch != args->datamatch if p->length && !p->wildcard
>
> but yeah it sounds like a plan.
>
I will try to do this. :)
Zhenyu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists