From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Liran Alon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: x86: Exit to user-mode on #UD intercept when emulator requires Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 16:13:42 +0200 Message-ID: <5A01BF96.8080303@ORACLE.COM> References: <1509979184-31964-1-git-send-email-liran.alon@oracle.com> <1509979184-31964-2-git-send-email-liran.alon@oracle.com> <5A016AD1.1090804@ORACLE.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Radim Krcmar , kvm , idan.brown@ORACLE.COM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "# v3 . 10+" To: Paolo Bonzini , Wanpeng Li Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 07/11/17 14:22, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 07/11/2017 09:12, Liran Alon wrote: >> >> >> On 07/11/17 02:47, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>> 2017-11-06 22:39 GMT+08:00 Liran Alon : >>>> Signed-off-by: Liran Alon >>>> Reviewed-by: Nikita Leshenko >>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk >>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk >>>> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini >>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org >>> >>> Except the changelog. >> Thanks for the review. >> Currently both you and Paolo added "Reviewed-by" to this commit. >> >> Is there anything else you wish me to add to the commit message before >> this commit being accepted? Do you have a suggestion? I though the >> commit-title explains it enough for this trivial patch and didn't saw >> any complain about not having body by ./scripts/checkpatch.pl. >> >> In addition, if I would need to edit commit message body, should I send >> the next version of this commit as a standalone or re-send the entire >> series? > > No, don't worry. Generally, when a maintainer adds a Reviewed-by it > means that it's just a matter of time before the patch goes in. > > For the commit message, I was thinking of something like: > > --- > Instruction emulation after trapping a #UD exception can result in an > MMIO access, for example when emulating a MOVBE on a processor that > doesn't support the instruction. In this case, the #UD vmexit handler > must exit to user mode, but there wasn't any code to do so. Add it for > both VMX and SVM. > --- > > Sounds good? Sounds good. Thanks. So if I understood correctly, I leave it to you to insert the patch with this commit message when it is inserted. Thanks. :) > > Paolo > >> Thanks, >> -Liran >> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Wanpeng Li >>> >>>> --- >>>> arch/x86/kvm/svm.c | 2 ++ >>>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 2 ++ >>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c >>>> index 0e68f0b3cbf7..e0162b20e3c9 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c >>>> @@ -2189,6 +2189,8 @@ static int ud_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm) >>>> int er; >>>> >>>> er = emulate_instruction(&svm->vcpu, EMULTYPE_TRAP_UD); >>>> + if (er == EMULATE_USER_EXIT) >>>> + return 0; >>>> if (er != EMULATE_DONE) >>>> kvm_queue_exception(&svm->vcpu, UD_VECTOR); >>>> return 1; >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c >>>> index 95a01609d7ee..2b63d9edc207 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c >>>> @@ -5886,6 +5886,8 @@ static int handle_exception(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >>>> return 1; >>>> } >>>> er = emulate_instruction(vcpu, EMULTYPE_TRAP_UD); >>>> + if (er == EMULATE_USER_EXIT) >>>> + return 0; >>>> if (er != EMULATE_DONE) >>>> kvm_queue_exception(vcpu, UD_VECTOR); >>>> return 1; >>>> -- >>>> 1.9.1 >>>> >