On 11/12/2017 10:19, Christoffer Dall wrote:

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 05:26:02PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

quoted

 
 int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_get_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_regs *regs)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
index f647e121070e..cdf0be02c95a 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c

@@ -1632,18 +1632,25 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 {
 	int ret;
 
+	vcpu_load(vcpu);
+
+	ret = -EINVAL;

you can initialize this directly.

quoted

 	if (vcpu->arch.pvr != sregs->pvr)
-		return -EINVAL;
+		goto out;
 
 	ret = set_sregs_base(vcpu, sregs);
 	if (ret < 0)
-		return ret;
+		goto out;
 
 	ret = set_sregs_arch206(vcpu, sregs);
 	if (ret < 0)
-		return ret;
+		goto out;
+
+	ret = vcpu->kvm->arch.kvm_ops->set_sregs(vcpu, sregs);
 
-	return vcpu->kvm->arch.kvm_ops->set_sregs(vcpu, sregs);
+out:
+	vcpu_put(vcpu);
+	return ret;
 }
 
 int kvmppc_get_one_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 id,

diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
index 18011fc4ac49..d95b4f15e52b 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c

@@ -2729,8 +2729,12 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_get_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_regs *regs)
 int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 				  struct kvm_sregs *sregs)
 {
+	vcpu_load(vcpu);
+
 	memcpy(&vcpu->run->s.regs.acrs, &sregs->acrs, sizeof(sregs->acrs));
 	memcpy(&vcpu->arch.sie_block->gcr, &sregs->crs, sizeof(sregs->crs));
+
+	vcpu_put(vcpu);
 	return 0;
 }
 

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 20a5f6776eea..a31a80aee0b9 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c

@@ -7500,15 +7500,19 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 	int mmu_reset_needed = 0;
 	int pending_vec, max_bits, idx;
 	struct desc_ptr dt;
+	int ret;
+
+	vcpu_load(vcpu);
 
+	ret = -EINVAL;

dito

Sure.

I'm doing it when applying.

Paolo

quoted

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <redacted>