Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3] x86/HVM: Fix teardown ordering in hvm_vcpu_destroy()

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/01/17 14:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 10/01/17 14:03, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> The order of destroy function calls in hvm_vcpu_destroy() should be
>> the reverse of init calls in hvm_vcpu_initialise().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> and queued.

Wait no.

The order in vcpu_initialise is

hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_init()
vlapic_init()
hvm_funcs.vcpu_initialise()
softirq_tasklet_init()
setup_compat_arg_xlat()

Therefore, moving the tasklet_kill() is wrong.

The overall delta should be:

andrewcoop@andrewcoop:/local/xen.git/xen$ git diff HEAD^
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
index 4c0f561..9f74334 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
@@ -1626,12 +1626,12 @@ void hvm_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
     free_compat_arg_xlat(v);
 
     tasklet_kill(&v->arch.hvm_vcpu.assert_evtchn_irq_tasklet);
-    hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
+    hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
 
     if ( is_hvm_vcpu(v) )
         vlapic_destroy(v);
 
-    hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
+    hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
 }
 
IIRC.

If you agree, I will fold this correction in while committing.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel