Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Fix locking order in handle_invalid_guest_state

[Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 03:44:20PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/29/2009 03:24 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 06:45:53PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>    
>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:53:26PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>      
>>>> Release and re-acquire preemption and IRQ lock in the same order as
>>>> vcpu_enter_guest does.
>>>>        
>>> This should happen in vcpu_enter_guest, before it decides to disable
>>> preemption/irqs (so you consolidate the control there).
>>>
>>> Maybe add a new member to x86_ops?
>>>      
>>
>> Why don't do something like this ?
>>    
>
> The downside is that we're moving a vmx specific hack to common code.
>
> I think this could be simplified if interrupt injection happened outside  
> the critical section.  This is needed anyway because emulated interrupt  
> injection needs to access guest memory (IVT and the stack).

Why can't it happen now (outside of the critical section), other than
the kvm_vcpu_kick thing?

>
> Something else I noticed, handle_invalid_guest_state() doesn't check  
> vcpu->requests; normal execution will exit due to the interrupt while  
> emulated execution will not.
>
> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function