On Thu, Mar 20, 2025, Atish Kumar Patra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 9:08 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > arch/riscv/kvm/main.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/main.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/main.c
> > > index 1fa8be5ee509..4b24705dc63a 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/main.c
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/main.c
> > > @@ -172,8 +172,8 @@ module_init(riscv_kvm_init);
> > >
> > > static void __exit riscv_kvm_exit(void)
> > > {
> > > - kvm_riscv_teardown();
> > > -
> > > kvm_exit();
> > > +
> > > + kvm_riscv_teardown();
> >
> > I wonder if there's a way we can guard against kvm_init()/kvm_exit() being called
> > too early/late. x86 had similar bugs for a very long time, e.g. see commit
> > e32b120071ea ("KVM: VMX: Do _all_ initialization before exposing /dev/kvm to userspace").
> >
> > E.g. maybe we do something like create+destroy a VM at the end of kvm_init() and
> > the beginning of kvm_exit()? Not sure if that would work for kvm_exit(), but it
> > should definitely be fine for kvm_init().
> >
> Yes. That would be super useful. I am not sure about the exact
> mechanism to achieve that though.
Me either :-)
> Do you just test code guarded within a new config that just
> creates/destroys a dummy VM ?
That's only idea I could come up with too, but I don't particulary like it.
> May be kunit test for KVM fits here in some way ?
I don't think a kunit test would be a good fit, there are likely too many
dependencies, and I'm pretty sure we'd still need to hack KVM.
