Skip to contentSkip to conversation

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] x86: KVM: svm: Fix a check in nested_svm_vmrun()" failed to apply to 5.3-stable tree

PATCH [email protected] 2 participants 3 messages Oct 3, 2019

Subsystems (3)
lore
Share & tools
lore

[email protected]

author maintainer
#0 lore raw

The patch below does not apply to the 5.3-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From a061985b81a20248da60589d01375ebe9bec4dfc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:38:52 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] x86: KVM: svm: Fix a check in nested_svm_vmrun()

We refactored this code a bit and accidentally deleted the "-" character from "-EINVAL". The kvm_vcpu_map() function never returns positive EINVAL.

Fixes c8e16b78c614 ("x86: KVM: svm: eliminate hardcoded RIP advancement from vmrun_interception()")
arch/x86/kvm/svm.c +1 -1
index fdeaf8f44949..2854aafc489e 100644
@@ -3598,7 +3598,7 @@ static int nested_svm_vmrun(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
 	vmcb_gpa = svm->vmcb->save.rax;
 
 	ret = kvm_vcpu_map(&svm->vcpu, gpa_to_gfn(vmcb_gpa), &map);
-	if (ret == EINVAL) {
+	if (ret == -EINVAL) {
 		kvm_inject_gp(&svm->vcpu, 0);
 		return 1;
 	} else if (ret) {
#1 lore raw
Quoted 16 lines · <[email protected]> writes:

The patch below does not apply to the 5.3-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From a061985b81a20248da60589d01375ebe9bec4dfc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:38:52 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] x86: KVM: svm: Fix a check in nested_svm_vmrun()

Quoted 6 lines

We refactored this code a bit and accidentally deleted the "-" character from "-EINVAL". The kvm_vcpu_map() function never returns positive EINVAL.

Fixes c8e16b78c614 ("x86: KVM: svm: eliminate hardcoded RIP

advancement from vmrun_interception()")

Hm, this commit wasn't backported to 5.3-stable so no fix is needed (scripts don't check pre-requisites like commits mentioned in Fixes:?)

Also, c8e16b78c614 is not a stable@ candidate IMO.

Quoted 1 line

This wasn't needed as it's only 5.4 which will have the offending commit and the fix.

Quoted 19 lines
arch/x86/kvm/svm.c +1 -1
index fdeaf8f44949..2854aafc489e 100644
@@ -3598,7 +3598,7 @@ static int nested_svm_vmrun(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
 	vmcb_gpa = svm->vmcb->save.rax;
 
 	ret = kvm_vcpu_map(&svm->vcpu, gpa_to_gfn(vmcb_gpa), &map);
-	if (ret == EINVAL) {
+	if (ret == -EINVAL) {
 		kvm_inject_gp(&svm->vcpu, 0);
 		return 1;
 	} else if (ret) {
Signature · 1 line
Vitaly
author maintainer
#2 lore raw
Quoted 28 lines · Vitaly Kuznetsov
Quoted 16 lines · <[email protected]> writes:

The patch below does not apply to the 5.3-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From a061985b81a20248da60589d01375ebe9bec4dfc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:38:52 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] x86: KVM: svm: Fix a check in nested_svm_vmrun()

Quoted 6 lines

We refactored this code a bit and accidentally deleted the "-" character from "-EINVAL". The kvm_vcpu_map() function never returns positive EINVAL.

Fixes c8e16b78c614 ("x86: KVM: svm: eliminate hardcoded RIP

advancement from vmrun_interception()")

Hm, this commit wasn't backported to 5.3-stable so no fix is needed (scripts don't check pre-requisites like commits mentioned in Fixes:?)

Quoted 6 lines

Also, c8e16b78c614 is not a stable@ candidate IMO.

Quoted 1 line

This wasn't needed as it's only 5.4 which will have the offending commit and the fix.

Yes, I saw that, but as it was explicitly marked for the stable tree, I wanted to verify that this really was not needed here.

thanks

greg k-h