[PATCH] KVM: arm64: Fix the return value of smp_call_function_single()

[PATCH] KVM: arm64: Fix the return value of smp_call_function_single()

[Yejune Deng]

In smp_call_function_single(), the 3rd parameter isn't the return value
and it's always positive. But it may return a negative value. So the
'ret' is should be the return value of the smp_call_function_single().

In check_kvm_target_cpu(), 'phys_target' is more readable than 'ret'.

Signed-off-by: Yejune Deng <yejune.deng@gmail.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
index 04c44853b103..5fa5c04106de 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
@@ -1815,9 +1815,9 @@ static int init_hyp_mode(void)
 	return err;
 }
 
-static void check_kvm_target_cpu(void *ret)
+static void check_kvm_target_cpu(void *phys_target)
 {
-	*(int *)ret = kvm_target_cpu();
+	*(int *)phys_target = kvm_target_cpu();
 }
 
 struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_mpidr_to_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long mpidr)
@@ -1879,7 +1879,7 @@ void kvm_arch_irq_bypass_start(struct irq_bypass_consumer *cons)
 int kvm_arch_init(void *opaque)
 {
 	int err;
-	int ret, cpu;
+	int ret, cpu, phys_target;
 	bool in_hyp_mode;
 
 	if (!is_hyp_mode_available()) {
@@ -1900,7 +1900,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init(void *opaque)
 			 "Only trusted guests should be used on this system.\n");
 
 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
-		smp_call_function_single(cpu, check_kvm_target_cpu, &ret, 1);
+		ret = smp_call_function_single(cpu, check_kvm_target_cpu, &phys_target, 1);
 		if (ret < 0) {
 			kvm_err("Error, CPU %d not supported!\n", cpu);
 			return -ENODEV;
-- 
2.29.0

Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Fix the return value of smp_call_function_single()

[Marc Zyngier]

On 2021-01-18 09:31, Yejune Deng wrote:
> In smp_call_function_single(), the 3rd parameter isn't the return value
> and it's always positive. But it may return a negative value. So the
> 'ret' is should be the return value of the smp_call_function_single().
> 
> In check_kvm_target_cpu(), 'phys_target' is more readable than 'ret'.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yejune Deng <yejune.deng@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> index 04c44853b103..5fa5c04106de 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -1815,9 +1815,9 @@ static int init_hyp_mode(void)
>  	return err;
>  }
> 
> -static void check_kvm_target_cpu(void *ret)
> +static void check_kvm_target_cpu(void *phys_target)
>  {
> -	*(int *)ret = kvm_target_cpu();
> +	*(int *)phys_target = kvm_target_cpu();
>  }
> 
>  struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_mpidr_to_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long 
> mpidr)
> @@ -1879,7 +1879,7 @@ void kvm_arch_irq_bypass_start(struct
> irq_bypass_consumer *cons)
>  int kvm_arch_init(void *opaque)
>  {
>  	int err;
> -	int ret, cpu;
> +	int ret, cpu, phys_target;
>  	bool in_hyp_mode;
> 
>  	if (!is_hyp_mode_available()) {
> @@ -1900,7 +1900,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init(void *opaque)
>  			 "Only trusted guests should be used on this system.\n");
> 
>  	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> -		smp_call_function_single(cpu, check_kvm_target_cpu, &ret, 1);
> +		ret = smp_call_function_single(cpu, check_kvm_target_cpu, 
> &phys_target, 1);
>  		if (ret < 0) {
>  			kvm_err("Error, CPU %d not supported!\n", cpu);
>  			return -ENODEV;

That's not the purpose of this code. We check the target CPU
for so that we can decide to *fail* the KVM init if there is
a CPU we do not support (we definitely used to do that with
32bit), and the error message clearly states this.

So if you want to handle a cross-call failure, please do that.
But don't change the existing semantics of this code.

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...