[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZUEKwOQoibAEWAzU@google.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 07:10:08 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Anish Moorthy <amoorthy@...gle.com>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"Mickaël Salaün" <mic@...ikod.net>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>,
Maciej Szmigiero <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
Liam Merwick <liam.merwick@...cle.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 16/35] KVM: Add KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD ioctl() for
guest-specific backing memory
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023, Chao Gao wrote:
> >+int kvm_gmem_create(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_create_guest_memfd *args)
> >+{
> >+ loff_t size = args->size;
> >+ u64 flags = args->flags;
> >+ u64 valid_flags = 0;
> >+
> >+ if (flags & ~valid_flags)
> >+ return -EINVAL;
> >+
> >+ if (size < 0 || !PAGE_ALIGNED(size))
> >+ return -EINVAL;
>
> is size == 0 a valid case?
Nope, this is a bug.
> >+ if (!xa_empty(&gmem->bindings) &&
> >+ xa_find(&gmem->bindings, &start, end - 1, XA_PRESENT)) {
> >+ filemap_invalidate_unlock(inode->i_mapping);
> >+ goto err;
> >+ }
> >+
> >+ /*
> >+ * No synchronize_rcu() needed, any in-flight readers are guaranteed to
> >+ * be see either a NULL file or this new file, no need for them to go
> >+ * away.
> >+ */
> >+ rcu_assign_pointer(slot->gmem.file, file);
> >+ slot->gmem.pgoff = start;
> >+
> >+ xa_store_range(&gmem->bindings, start, end - 1, slot, GFP_KERNEL);
> >+ filemap_invalidate_unlock(inode->i_mapping);
> >+
> >+ /*
> >+ * Drop the reference to the file, even on success. The file pins KVM,
> >+ * not the other way 'round. Active bindings are invalidated if the
> >+ * file is closed before memslots are destroyed.
> >+ */
> >+ fput(file);
> >+ return 0;
> >+
> >+err:
> >+ fput(file);
> >+ return -EINVAL;
>
> The cleanup, i.e., filemap_invalidate_unlock() and fput(), is common. So, I think it
> may be slightly better to consolidate the common part e.g.,
I would prefer to keep this as-is. Only goto needs the unlock, and I find it easier
to understand the success vs. error paths with explicit returns. But it's not a
super strong preference.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists