| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
Commit f458d039db7e ("kvm: ioapic: Lazy update IOAPIC EOI") introduces
the following infinite loop:
BUG: stack guard page was hit at 000000008f595917 \
(stack is 00000000bdefe5a4..00000000ae2b06f5)
kernel stack overflow (double-fault): 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI
RIP: 0010:kvm_set_irq+0x51/0x160 [kvm]
Call Trace:
irqfd_resampler_ack+0x32/0x90 [kvm]
kvm_notify_acked_irq+0x62/0xd0 [kvm]
kvm_ioapic_update_eoi_one.isra.0+0x30/0x120 [kvm]
ioapic_set_irq+0x20e/0x240 [kvm]
kvm_ioapic_set_irq+0x5c/0x80 [kvm]
kvm_set_irq+0xbb/0x160 [kvm]
? kvm_hv_set_sint+0x20/0x20 [kvm]
irqfd_resampler_ack+0x32/0x90 [kvm]
kvm_notify_acked_irq+0x62/0xd0 [kvm]
kvm_ioapic_update_eoi_one.isra.0+0x30/0x120 [kvm]
ioapic_set_irq+0x20e/0x240 [kvm]
kvm_ioapic_set_irq+0x5c/0x80 [kvm]
kvm_set_irq+0xbb/0x160 [kvm]
? kvm_hv_set_sint+0x20/0x20 [kvm]
....
The re-entrancy happens because the irq state is the OR of
the interrupt state and the resamplefd state. That is, we don't
want to show the state as 0 until we've had a chance to set the
resamplefd. But if the interrupt has _not_ gone low then
ioapic_set_irq is invoked again, causing an infinite loop.
This can only happen for a level-triggered interrupt, otherwise
irqfd_inject would immediately set the KVM_USERSPACE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID high
and then low. Fortunately, in the case of level-triggered interrupts the VMEXIT already happens because
TMR is set. Thus, fix the bug by restricting the lazy invocation
of the ack notifier to edge-triggered interrupts, the only ones that
need it.
Tested-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Reported-by: borisvk@bstnet.org
Suggested-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Link: https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg213512.html
Fixes: f458d039db7e ("kvm: ioapic: Lazy update IOAPIC EOI")
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=207489
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
|
|
Current logic incorrectly uses the enum ioapic_irq_destination_types
to check the posted interrupt destination types. However, the value was
set using APIC_DM_XXX macros, which are left-shifted by 8 bits.
Fixes by using the APIC_DM_FIXED and APIC_DM_LOWEST instead.
Fixes: (fdcf75621375 'KVM: x86: Disable posted interrupts for non-standard IRQs delivery modes')
Cc: Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Message-Id: <1586239989-58305-1-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
|
|
The corresponding code was added for VMX in commit 42dbaa5a057
("KVM: x86: Virtualize debug registers, 2008-12-15) but never for AMD.
Fix this.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
|
|
Use BUG() in the impossible-to-hit default case when switching on the
scope of INVEPT to squash a warning with clang 11 due to clang treating
the BUG_ON() as conditional.
>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c:5246:3: warning: variable 'roots_to_free'
is used uninitialized whenever 'if' condition is false
[-Wsometimes-uninitialized]
BUG_ON(1);
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Fixes: ce8fe7b77bd8 ("KVM: nVMX: Free only the affected contexts when emulating INVEPT")
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Message-Id: <20200504153506.28898-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
|
|
In the unlikely event that a 32bit vcpu traps into the hypervisor
on an instruction that is located right at the end of the 32bit
range, the emulation of that instruction is going to increment
PC past the 32bit range. This isn't great, as userspace can then
observe this value and get a bit confused.
Conversly, userspace can do things like (in the context of a 64bit
guest that is capable of 32bit EL0) setting PSTATE to AArch64-EL0,
set PC to a 64bit value, change PSTATE to AArch32-USR, and observe
that PC hasn't been truncated. More confusion.
Fix both by:
- truncating PC increments for 32bit guests
- sanitizing all 32bit regs every time a core reg is changed by
userspace, and that PSTATE indicates a 32bit mode.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
|
|
KVM now expects to be able to use HW-accelerated delivery of vSGIs
as soon as the guest has enabled thm. Unfortunately, we only
initialize the GICv4 context if we have a virtual ITS exposed to
the guest.
Fix it by always initializing the GICv4.1 context if it is
available on the host.
Fixes: 2291ff2f2a56 ("KVM: arm64: GICv4.1: Plumb SGI implementation selection in the distributor")
Reviewed-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
|
|
We currently save/restore sp_el0 in C code. This is a bit unsafe,
as a lot of the C code expects 'current' to be accessible from
there (and the opportunity to run kernel code in HYP is specially
great with VHE).
Instead, let's move the save/restore of sp_el0 to the assembly
code (in __guest_enter), making sure that sp_el0 is correct
very early on when we exit the guest, and is preserved as long
as possible to its host value when we enter the guest.
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
|
|
SYM_CODE_START defines \label , so it is redundant to define \label again.
A redefinition at the same place is accepted by GNU as
(https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=159fbb6088f17a341bcaaac960623cab881b4981)
but rejected by the clang integrated assembler.
Fixes: 617a2f392c92 ("arm64: kvm: Annotate assembly using modern annoations")
Signed-off-by: Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/988
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200413231016.250737-1-maskray@google.com
|
|
If we're going to fail out the vgic_add_lpi(), let's make sure the
allocated vgic_irq memory is also freed. Though it seems that both
cases are unlikely to fail.
Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200414030349.625-3-yuzenghui@huawei.com
|
|
It's likely that the vcpu fails to handle all virtual interrupts if
userspace decides to destroy it, leaving the pending ones stay in the
ap_list. If the un-handled one is a LPI, its vgic_irq structure will
be eventually leaked because of an extra refcount increment in
vgic_queue_irq_unlock().
This was detected by kmemleak on almost every guest destroy, the
backtrace is as follows:
unreferenced object 0xffff80725aed5500 (size 128):
comm "CPU 5/KVM", pid 40711, jiffies 4298024754 (age 166366.512s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 08 01 a9 73 6d 80 ff ff ...........sm...
c8 61 ee a9 00 20 ff ff 28 1e 55 81 6c 80 ff ff .a... ..(.U.l...
backtrace:
[<000000004bcaa122>] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x2dc/0x418
[<0000000069c7dabb>] vgic_add_lpi+0x88/0x418
[<00000000bfefd5c5>] vgic_its_cmd_handle_mapi+0x4dc/0x588
[<00000000cf993975>] vgic_its_process_commands.part.5+0x484/0x1198
[<000000004bd3f8e3>] vgic_its_process_commands+0x50/0x80
[<00000000b9a65b2b>] vgic_mmio_write_its_cwriter+0xac/0x108
[<0000000009641ebb>] dispatch_mmio_write+0xd0/0x188
[<000000008f79d288>] __kvm_io_bus_write+0x134/0x240
[<00000000882f39ac>] kvm_io_bus_write+0xe0/0x150
[<0000000078197602>] io_mem_abort+0x484/0x7b8
[<0000000060954e3c>] kvm_handle_guest_abort+0x4cc/0xa58
[<00000000e0d0cd65>] handle_exit+0x24c/0x770
[<00000000b44a7fad>] kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0x460/0x1988
[<0000000025fb897c>] kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x4f8/0xee0
[<000000003271e317>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x160/0xcd8
[<00000000e7f39607>] ksys_ioctl+0x98/0xd8
Fix it by retiring all pending LPIs in the ap_list on the destroy path.
p.s. I can also reproduce it on a normal guest shutdown. It is because
userspace still send LPIs to vcpu (through KVM_SIGNAL_MSI ioctl) while
the guest is being shutdown and unable to handle it. A little strange
though and haven't dig further...
Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
[maz: moved the distributor deallocation down to avoid an UAF splat]
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200414030349.625-2-yuzenghui@huawei.com
|
|
There is no point in accessing the HW when writing to any of the
ISPENDR/ICPENDR registers from userspace, as only the guest should
be allowed to change the HW state.
Introduce new userspace-specific accessors that deal solely with
the virtual state. Note that the API differs from that of GICv3,
where userspace exclusively uses ISPENDR to set the state. Too
bad we can't reuse it.
Fixes: 82e40f558de56 ("KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-v2: Handle SGI bits in GICD_I{S,C}PENDR0 as WI")
Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
|
|
There is no point in accessing the HW when writing to any of the
ISENABLER/ICENABLER registers from userspace, as only the guest
should be allowed to change the HW state.
Introduce new userspace-specific accessors that deal solely with
the virtual state.
Reported-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Tested-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
|
|
When a guest tries to read the active state of its interrupts,
we currently just return whatever state we have in memory. This
means that if such an interrupt lives in a List Register on another
CPU, we fail to obsertve the latest active state for this interrupt.
In order to remedy this, stop all the other vcpus so that they exit
and we can observe the most recent value for the state. This is
similar to what we are doing for the write side of the same
registers, and results in new MMIO handlers for userspace (which
do not need to stop the guest, as it is supposed to be stopped
already).
Reported-by: Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>
Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
|
|
Since cd758a9b57ee "KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Use __gfn_to_pfn_memslot in HPT
page fault handler", it's been possible in fairly rare circumstances to
load a non-present PTE in kvmppc_book3s_hv_page_fault() when running a
guest on a POWER8 host.
Because that case wasn't checked for, we could misinterpret the non-present
PTE as being a cache-inhibited PTE. That could mismatch with the
corresponding hash PTE, which would cause the function to fail with -EFAULT
a little further down. That would propagate up to the KVM_RUN ioctl()
generally causing the KVM userspace (usually qemu) to fall over.
This addresses the problem by catching that case and returning to the guest
instead.
For completeness, this fixes the radix page fault handler in the same
way. For radix this didn't cause any obvious misbehaviour, because we
ended up putting the non-present PTE into the guest's partition-scoped
page tables, leading immediately to another hypervisor data/instruction
storage interrupt, which would go through the page fault path again
and fix things up.
Fixes: cd758a9b57ee "KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Use __gfn_to_pfn_memslot in HPT page fault handler"
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820402
Reported-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Tested-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
|
|
Frame pointers are completely broken by vmenter.S because it clobbers
RBP:
arch/x86/kvm/svm/vmenter.o: warning: objtool: __svm_vcpu_run()+0xe4: BP used as a scratch register
That's unavoidable, so just skip checking that file when frame pointers
are configured in.
On the other hand, ORC can handle that code just fine, so leave objtool
enabled in the !FRAME_POINTER case.
Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <01fae42917bacad18be8d2cbc771353da6603473.1587398610.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> # build-tested
Fixes: 199cd1d7b534 ("KVM: SVM: Split svm_vcpu_run inline assembly to separate file")
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200417152936.772256-1-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com
|
|
The diag 0x44 handler, which handles a directed yield, goes into a
a codepath that does a kvm_for_each_vcpu() and ultimately
deliverable_irqs(). The new check for kvm_s390_pv_cpu_is_protected()
contains an assertion that the vcpu->mutex is held, which isn't going
to be the case in this scenario.
The result is a plethora of these messages if the lock debugging
is enabled, and thus an implication that we have a problem.
WARNING: CPU: 9 PID: 16167 at arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h:239 deliverable_irqs+0x1c6/0x1d0 [kvm]
...snip...
Call Trace:
[<000003ff80429bf2>] deliverable_irqs+0x1ca/0x1d0 [kvm]
([<000003ff80429b34>] deliverable_irqs+0x10c/0x1d0 [kvm])
[<000003ff8042ba82>] kvm_s390_vcpu_has_irq+0x2a/0xa8 [kvm]
[<000003ff804101e2>] kvm_arch_dy_runnable+0x22/0x38 [kvm]
[<000003ff80410284>] kvm_vcpu_on_spin+0x8c/0x1d0 [kvm]
[<000003ff80436888>] kvm_s390_handle_diag+0x3b0/0x768 [kvm]
[<000003ff80425af4>] kvm_handle_sie_intercept+0x1cc/0xcd0 [kvm]
[<000003ff80422bb0>] __vcpu_run+0x7b8/0xfd0 [kvm]
[<000003ff80423de6>] kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0xee/0x3e0 [kvm]
[<000003ff8040ccd8>] kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x2c8/0x8d0 [kvm]
[<00000001504ced06>] ksys_ioctl+0xae/0xe8
[<00000001504cedaa>] __s390x_sys_ioctl+0x2a/0x38
[<0000000150cb9034>] system_call+0xd8/0x2d8
2 locks held by CPU 2/KVM/16167:
#0: 00000001951980c0 (&vcpu->mutex){+.+.}, at: kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x90/0x8d0 [kvm]
#1: 000000019599c0f0 (&kvm->srcu){....}, at: __vcpu_run+0x4bc/0xfd0 [kvm]
Last Breaking-Event-Address:
[<000003ff80429b34>] deliverable_irqs+0x10c/0x1d0 [kvm]
irq event stamp: 11967
hardirqs last enabled at (11975): [<00000001502992f2>] console_unlock+0x4ca/0x650
hardirqs last disabled at (11982): [<0000000150298ee8>] console_unlock+0xc0/0x650
softirqs last enabled at (7940): [<0000000150cba6ca>] __do_softirq+0x422/0x4d8
softirqs last disabled at (7929): [<00000001501cd688>] do_softirq_own_stack+0x70/0x80
Considering what's being done here, let's fix this by removing the
mutex assertion rather than acquiring the mutex for every other vcpu.
Fixes: 201ae986ead7 ("KVM: s390: protvirt: Implement interrupt injection")
Signed-off-by: Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200415190353.63625-1-farman@linux.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
|
|
|
|
When remapping a mapping where a portion of a VMA is remapped
into another portion of the VMA it can cause the VMA to become
split. During the copy_vma operation the VMA can actually
be remerged if it's an anonymous VMA whose pages have not yet
been faulted. This isn't normally a problem because at the end
of the remap the original portion is unmapped causing it to
become split again.
However, MREMAP_DONTUNMAP leaves that original portion in place which
means that the VMA which was split and then remerged is not actually
split at the end of the mremap. This patch fixes a bug where
we don't detect that the VMAs got remerged and we end up
putting back VM_ACCOUNT on the next mapping which is completely
unreleated. When that next mapping is unmapped it results in
incorrectly unaccounting for the memory which was never accounted,
and eventually we will underflow on the memory comittment.
There is also another issue which is similar, we're currently
accouting for the number of pages in the new_vma but that's wrong.
We need to account for the length of the remap operation as that's
all that is being added. If there was a mapping already at that
location its comittment would have been adjusted as part of
the munmap at the start of the mremap.
A really simple repro can be seen in:
https://gist.github.com/bgaff/e101ce99da7d9a8c60acc641d07f312c
Fixes: e346b3813067 ("mm/mremap: add MREMAP_DONTUNMAP to mremap()")
Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The jc42 driver passes I2C client's name as hwmon device name. In case
of device tree probed devices this ends up being part of the compatible
string, "jc-42.4-temp". This name contains hyphens and the hwmon core
doesn't like this:
jc42 2-0018: hwmon: 'jc-42.4-temp' is not a valid name attribute, please fix
This changes the name to "jc42" which doesn't have any illegal
characters.
Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200417092853.31206-1-s.hauer@pengutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
|
|
Tremont CPUs support IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES bits to indicate whether
specific SKUs have support for split lock detection.
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200416205754.21177-4-tony.luck@intel.com
|
|
The Intel Software Developers' Manual erroneously listed bit 5 of the
IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES register as an architectural feature. It is not.
Features enumerated by IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES are model specific and
implementation details may vary in different cpu models. Thus it is only
safe to trust features after checking the CPU model.
Icelake client and server models are known to implement the split lock
detect feature even though they don't enumerate IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES
[ tglx: Use switch() for readability and massage comments ]
Fixes: 6650cdd9a8cc ("x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel")
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200416205754.21177-3-tony.luck@intel.com
|
Paolo Bonzini
Suravee Suthikulpanit
Sean Christopherson
Marc Zyngier
Fangrui Song
Zenghui Yu
Paul Mackerras
Josh Poimboeuf
Claudio Imbrenda
Eric Farman
Linus Torvalds
Brian Geffon
Gustavo A. R. Silva
Sascha Hauer
Tony Luck