Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Don't rely on the wrong pending table

[Zenghui Yu]

Hi Eric,

On 2019/10/29 20:49, Auger Eric wrote:
> On 10/29/19 1:27 PM, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> > okay, the remaining question is that in vgic_v3_save_pending_tables():
> >
> >  ÂÂÂÂstored = val & (1U << bit_nr);
> >  ÂÂÂÂif (stored == irq->pending_latch)
> >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ continue;
> >
> >  ÂÂÂÂif (irq->pending_latch)
> >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ val |= 1 << bit_nr;
> >  ÂÂÂÂelse
> >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ val &= ~(1 << bit_nr);
> >
> > Do we really have a scenario where irq->pending_latch==false and
> > stored==true (corresponds to the above "else") and then we clear
> > pending status of this LPI in guest memory?
> > I can not think out one now.
>
> if you save, restore and save again. On the 1st save the LPI may be
> pending, it gets stored. On the second save the LPI may be not pending
> anymore?

I assume you mean the "restore" by vgic_its_restore_ite().

While restoring a LPI, we will sync the pending status from guest
pending table (into the software pending_latch), and clear the
corresponding bit in guest memory.
See vgic_v3_lpi_sync_pending_status().

So on the second save, the LPI can be not pending, the guest pending
table will also indicate not pending.


Thanks,
Zenghui