[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGtprH8EhU_XNuQUhCPonwfbhpg+faHx+CdtbSRouMA38eSGCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 17:34:43 -0700
From: Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com, mlevitsk@...hat.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, kai.huang@...el.com,
reinette.chatre@...el.com, xiaoyao.li@...el.com,
tony.lindgren@...ux.intel.com, binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com,
isaku.yamahata@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yan.y.zhao@...el.com,
chao.gao@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/1] KVM: TDX: Add sub-ioctl KVM_TDX_TERMINATE_VM
On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 6:20 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> +static int tdx_terminate_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> + int r = 0;
> +
> + guard(mutex)(&kvm->lock);
> + cpus_read_lock();
> +
> + if (!kvm_trylock_all_vcpus(kvm)) {
Does this need to be a trylock variant? Is userspace expected to keep
retrying this operation indefinitely?
> + r = -EBUSY;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + kvm_vm_dead(kvm);
> + kvm_unlock_all_vcpus(kvm);
> +
> + __tdx_release_hkid(kvm, true);
> +out:
> + cpus_read_unlock();
> + return r;
> +}
> +
Powered by blists - more mailing lists