linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/13] RISC-V: KVM: Check kvm_riscv_vcpu_alloc_vector

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK9=C2WWtOdG9aYhmrTnDNoV9f0VBYUENJ8utKd=4G9-1SyzdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 10:31:38 +0530
From: Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>
To: Atish Patra <atish.patra@...ux.dev>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, 
	Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>, 
	Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] RISC-V: KVM: Check kvm_riscv_vcpu_alloc_vector_context()
 return value

On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 5:46 AM Atish Patra <atish.patra@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/4/25 11:14 PM, Anup Patel wrote:
> > The kvm_riscv_vcpu_alloc_vector_context() does return an error code
> > upon failure so don't ignore this in kvm_arch_vcpu_create().
>
> currently, kvm_riscv_vcpu_alloc_vector_context returns -ENOMEM only.
>
> Do you have some plans to return different errors in the future ?

Even if kvm_riscv_vcpu_alloc_vector_context() always returns -ENOMEM,
the caller should not assume anything about the return value.

>
> Otherwise, the code remains same before and after.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>
> > ---
> >   arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c | 6 ++++--
> >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> > index e0a01af426ff..6a1914b21ec3 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> > @@ -148,8 +148,10 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >
> >       spin_lock_init(&vcpu->arch.reset_state.lock);
> >
> > -     if (kvm_riscv_vcpu_alloc_vector_context(vcpu))
> > -             return -ENOMEM;
> > +     /* Setup VCPU vector context */
> The function name is pretty self explanatory. So no need of this comment ?

Yes, no need for this comment. I will drop it in the next revision.

> > +     rc = kvm_riscv_vcpu_alloc_vector_context(vcpu);
> > +     if (rc)
> > +             return rc;
> >
> >       /* Setup VCPU timer */
> >       kvm_riscv_vcpu_timer_init(vcpu);
>

Regards,
Anup