Re: [PATCH 2/2] Interrupt unhalts vcpu when it shouldn't

[Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>]

On Monday 23 March 2009 23:17:42 Avi Kivity wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> kvm_vcpu_block() unhalts vpu on an interrupt/timer without checking
> >> if interrupt window is actually opened.
> >>
> >>
> >> +static int svm_interrupt_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +{
> >> +    struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
> >> +    struct vmcb *vmcb = svm->vmcb;
> >> +    return (vmcb->save.rflags & X86_EFLAGS_IF) && +
> >> !(vmcb->control.int_state & SVM_INTERRUPT_SHADOW_MASK) &&
> >> +        (svm->vcpu.arch.hflags & HF_GIF_MASK);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>
> >> +static int vmx_interrupt_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +{
> >> +    vmx_update_window_states(vcpu);
> >> +    return vcpu->arch.interrupt_window_open;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  static void kvm_do_inject_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>  }
> >> +
> >> +int kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +{
> >> +    return kvm_x86_ops->interrupt_allowed(vcpu);
> >> +}
> >
> > If the guest enables interrupts but sets tpr/cr8 to block interrupts,
> > we'll spin (like we do now).
> >
> > So I think this should be called kvm_arch_can_accept_interrupt() and
> > take tpr into account.
>
> kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() takes the tpr into account, so we're okay here.
>
> Marcelo, Sheng?

Yes, looks good to me.

-- 
regards
Yang, Sheng