qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] amd_iommu: Return error on machines with no PCI


From: Eduardo Habkost
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] amd_iommu: Return error on machines with no PCI
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:31:38 -0300
User-agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:24:23PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 14.09.2017 22:18, Mohammed Gamal wrote:
> > Starting the following command line causes a segfault
> > qemu-system-x86_64 -S -machine isapc,accel=kvm -device amd-iommu
> > 
> > This is due to the fact that the machine type 'isapc' doesn't have
> > a PCI bus, while amd_iommu doesn't check if the machine has PCI support
> > and subsequently does a null-pointer access. AMD IOMMU shouldn't even work
> > if the target machine doesn't have PCI.
> > 
> > Add a check for PCI on the given machine type and return an error if PCI
> > is not supported.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mohammed Gamal <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  hw/i386/amd_iommu.c | 7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/i386/amd_iommu.c b/hw/i386/amd_iommu.c
> > index 334938a..9a667b7 100644
> > --- a/hw/i386/amd_iommu.c
> > +++ b/hw/i386/amd_iommu.c
> > @@ -1153,6 +1153,13 @@ static void amdvi_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error 
> > **err)
> >      }
> >  
> >      bus = pcms->bus;
> > +
> > +    if (!bus) {
> > +        error_setg(err, "Machine-type '%s' does not support PCI",
> > +                   mc->name);
> > +        return;
> > +    }
> > +
> >      s->iotlb = g_hash_table_new_full(amdvi_uint64_hash,
> >                                       amdvi_uint64_equal, g_free, g_free);
> >  
> > 
> 
> Patch looks fine to me, but I think it would also be sufficient to
> change the check at the beginning of the function to test "if (!pcms ||
> !pcms->bus)" instead of just "if (!pcms)" ... the error message
> "Machine-type 'xxx' not supported by amd-iommu" is also adequate if
> there is no PCI bus available on the system.

I agree this would be much simpler.

-- 
Eduardo



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]