[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/MCE: bypass uninitialized vcpu in vMCE injection
On 05/07/2014 04:38 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.05.14 at 10:27, <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 05/07/2014 04:23 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.05.14 at 09:29, <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/vmce.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/vmce.c
@@ -356,6 +356,10 @@ int inject_vmce(struct domain *d, int vcpu)
if ( vcpu != VMCE_INJECT_BROADCAST && vcpu != v->vcpu_id )
continue;
+ /* In case of broadcasting, don't inject to uninitialized VCPU */
+ if ( vcpu == VMCE_INJECT_BROADCAST && !v->is_initialised )
+ continue;
+
Conceptually fine, but mechanically in need of improvement: Please
fold the check with the previous one, to avoid checking for
VMCE_INJECT_BROADCAST twice.
I'd do this as
if ( vcpu != VMCE_INJECT_BROADCAST ? vcpu != v->vcpu_id
: !v->is_initialised )
continue;
Thanks for comments. In this case, is it OK to you to add below comments
just before the if statement? I think it's better to keep the comments
somewhere.
/* In case of broadcasting, don't inject to uninitialized VCPU */
if ( vcpu != VMCE_INJECT_BROADCAST ? vcpu != v->vcpu_id
: !v->is_initialised )
continue;
Yes, of course it's fine to keep the comment (but please fix its style
- it's missing a stop at the end).
Oh, thanks for noticing that. I'll re-send patch after sanity check on
my testing machine.
Thanks,
-Kai
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
