[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bbf38496-658a-d6ca-b76c-d3642609b8fb@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:05:52 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-5.18] KVM: fix bad user ABI for KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT
On 4/29/22 16:03, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> For compatibility with userspace that was using the flags field,
>> a union overlaps flags with data[0].
>
> I think "compatibility" is slightly misleading, e.g. the offset of the field is
> changing for 32-bit userspace.
Well, the only such userspace AFAIK is crosvm on ARM and there's no
compat ABI for ARM. But yeah, your wording below sounds good.
> To avoid breaking compilation of userspace that was using the flags
> field, provide a userspace-only union to overlap flags with data[0].
>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>> index 91a6fe4e02c0..f903ab0c8d7a 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>> @@ -445,7 +445,11 @@ struct kvm_run {
>> #define KVM_SYSTEM_EVENT_RESET 2
>> #define KVM_SYSTEM_EVENT_CRASH 3
>> __u32 type;
>> - __u64 flags;
>> + __u32 ndata;
>> + union {
>> + __u64 flags;
>
> As alluded to above, what about wrapping flags in
>
> #ifndef __KERNEL__
> __u64 flags;
> #endif
>
> so that KVM doesn't try to use flags?
Interesting idea. I'll apply it and push the patch.
Thanks for the review!
Paolo
>> + __u64 data[16];
>> + };
>> } system_event;
>> /* KVM_EXIT_S390_STSI */
>> struct {
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists