From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/5] KVM: x86: Remove KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:41:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZiJ0mjZxlRsLwl3E@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240419112952.15598-5-wei.w.wang@intel.com>
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024, Wei Wang wrote:
> KVM_X86_OP and KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL were utilized to define and execute
> static_call_update() calls on mandatory and optional hooks, respectively.
> Mandatory hooks were invoked via static_call() and necessitated definition
> due to the presumption that an undefined hook (i.e., NULL) would cause
> static_call() to fail. This assumption no longer holds true as
> static_call() has been updated to treat a "NULL" hook as a NOP on x86.
> Consequently, the so-called mandatory hooks are no longer required to be
> defined, rendering them non-mandatory.
This is wrong. They absolutely are mandatory. The fact that static_call() doesn't
blow up doesn't make them optional. If a vendor neglects to implement a mandatory
hook, KVM *will* break, just not immediately on the static_call().
The static_call() behavior is actually unfortunate, as KVM at least would prefer
that it does explode on a NULL point. I.e. better to crash the kernel (hopefully
before getting to production) then to have a lurking bug just waiting to cause
problems.
> This eliminates the need to differentiate between mandatory and optional
> hooks, allowing a single KVM_X86_OP to suffice.
>
> So KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL and the WARN_ON() associated with KVM_X86_OP are
> removed to simplify usage,
Just in case it isn't clear, I am very strongly opposed to removing KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL()
and the WARN_ON() protection to ensure mandatory ops are implemented.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-19 13:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-19 11:29 [PATCH v2 0/5] KVM/x86: Enhancements to static calls Wei Wang
2024-04-19 11:29 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] KVM: x86: Replace static_call_cond() with static_call() Wei Wang
2024-04-19 11:29 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] KVM: x86: Introduce KVM_X86_CALL() to simplify static calls of kvm_x86_ops Wei Wang
2024-04-22 10:34 ` Paolo Bonzini
2024-04-22 16:43 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-04-19 11:29 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] KVM: x86/pmu: Add KVM_PMU_CALL() to simplify static calls of kvm_pmu_ops Wei Wang
2024-04-19 11:29 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/5] KVM: x86: Remove KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL Wei Wang
2024-04-19 13:41 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2024-04-19 15:12 ` Wang, Wei W
2024-04-19 15:58 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-04-20 3:01 ` Wang, Wei W
2024-04-19 11:29 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] KVM: x86/pmu: Remove KVM_X86_PMU_OP_OPTIONAL Wei Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZiJ0mjZxlRsLwl3E@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=wei.w.wang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.