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

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

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?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function