From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: KVM: x86: better fix for race between nmi injection and enabling
 nmi window
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:30:59 -0300
Message-ID: <20110331093059.GA7259@amt.cnet>
References: <20110330163028.GA27365@amt.cnet>
 <4D936572.3060801@redhat.com>
 <20110330184703.GC7741@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20055 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1757005Ab1CaJkj (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:40:39 -0400
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2V9edJt024381
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:40:39 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110330184703.GC7741@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 08:47:03PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:16:34PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 03/30/2011 06:30 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >Based on Gleb's idea, fix race between nmi injection and enabling
> > >nmi window in a simpler way.
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti<mtosatti@redhat.com>
> > >
> > >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > >index a6a129f..9a7cc1be 100644
> > >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > >@@ -5152,6 +5152,7 @@ static void kvm_put_guest_xcr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  {
> > >  	int r;
> > >+	int nmi_pending;
> > >  	bool req_int_win = !irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm)&&
> > >  		vcpu->run->request_interrupt_window;
> > >
> > >@@ -5195,11 +5196,13 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  	if (unlikely(r))
> > >  		goto out;
> > >
> > >+	nmi_pending = ACCESS_ONCE(vcpu->arch.nmi_pending);
> > >+
> > >  	if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu) || req_int_win) {
> > >  		inject_pending_event(vcpu);
> > >
> > >  		/* enable NMI/IRQ window open exits if needed */
> > >-		if (vcpu->arch.nmi_pending)
> > >+		if (nmi_pending)
> > >  			kvm_x86_ops->enable_nmi_window(vcpu);
> > >  		else if (kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) || req_int_win)
> > >  			kvm_x86_ops->enable_irq_window(vcpu);
> > >
> > 
> > What about the check in inject_pending_events()?
> > 
> Didn't we decide that this check is not a problem? Worst that can happen
> is NMI injection will be delayed till next exit.

Yes.