[PATCH 4/5] arm/arm64: KVM: Don't allow creating VCPUs after vgic_initialized

[Eric Auger]

On 12/09/2014 04:44 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> When the vgic initializes its internal state it does so based on the
> number of VCPUs available at the time.  If we allow KVM to create more
> VCPUs after the VGIC has been initialized, we are likely to error out in
> unfortunate ways later, perform buffer overflows etc.
> 
> Cc: Eric Auger <eric.auger at linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org>
> ---
> This replaces Eric Auger's previous patch
> (https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2014-December/012646.html),
> because it fits better with testing to include it in this series and I
> realized that we need to add a check against irqchip_in_kernel() as
> well.
> 
>  arch/arm/kvm/arm.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> index a9d005f..d4da244 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -213,6 +213,11 @@ struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int id)
>  	int err;
>  	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>  
> +	if (irqchip_in_kernel(kvm) && vgic_initialized(kvm)) {
Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger at linaro.org>
a question about that irqchip_in_kernel(kvm):
kvm->arch.vgic.in_kernel is set in kvm_vgic_create but nobody resets it,
especially in destroy, am i wrong?
if the vgic is initialized shouldn't it be also created? Shouldn't we
test irqchip_in_kernel in vgic_init instead?
Also in case we need irqchip_in_kernel(kvm) here we might need it also
in kvm_vgic_inject_irq because dist->lock is grabbed in
vgic_update_irq_pending.

Eric
> +		err = -EBUSY;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
>  	vcpu = kmem_cache_zalloc(kvm_vcpu_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!vcpu) {
>  		err = -ENOMEM;
>