From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1064C3A5A6 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:08:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A4920882 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:08:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390269AbfISOIa (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:08:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52966 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388068AbfISOIa (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:08:30 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41A6D69084 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:08:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id h6so1884295wmb.2 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 07:08:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=sWppofEf+0Xf9T8YVPh73Hir/CIu5+9mJNluOrUbKEk=; b=MMhixo8c8Qrys2edgUWuwvInS6KE7wSfF5FHJ4e8ZShOtSs0yQz5tLY+oiq27D4Ull SyNSyriKYwsi3+0egX+2eouLciExUAHzXkz0FyX9mDU6I+tI1tfKrV4+7gJwrY6RuPmo Ih3T7xutR6GQ8UxSyYJwmWXF4TDWIP2PWgkAbpUtGCV4aGUyNGclR0UkgjojqzF0lKGt txDgICjZNO7OJ35oToZHskVFR9Rw48kgHRoCJYRaeIMVvX9BD4LoT+k3AWvJWVoUIQMs nghojqcnyVTpgbZF34juH8ww6+/0x6PY1nOm5sF0O1Vk0govX0VRi+R4mSxp2UkdcVVB Orjw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXPJT0bwGtt1ZAhDUD8DwKPJ9RhR6r5FIbhJ7/IL8mowfIHXf7Y +5lXoyUJUj6gLtJNFR8HxfB99smqOjXLy1YQxMKDORvpdQtNzeIyOIFlSOSI8z0dPgVAVuHZD3b Yl5wp8pvikdi/ X-Received: by 2002:adf:fa10:: with SMTP id m16mr7390704wrr.322.1568902108698; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 07:08:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzw3791bLrEM3sxJKp4ms/EYqTYy5eVpuSG5XRNNjAOswIC+XU11cpVl6WFDUloWFkVtH8H8w== X-Received: by 2002:adf:fa10:: with SMTP id m16mr7390693wrr.322.1568902108499; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 07:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vitty.brq.redhat.com (nat-pool-brq-t.redhat.com. [213.175.37.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t203sm8441156wmf.42.2019.09.19.07.08.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 19 Sep 2019 07:08:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Vitaly Kuznetsov To: Liran Alon Cc: sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, jmattson@google.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 0/8]: x86: vmx: Test INIT processing in various CPU VMX states In-Reply-To: <20190919125211.18152-1-liran.alon@oracle.com> References: <20190919125211.18152-1-liran.alon@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 16:08:27 +0200 Message-ID: <87a7b09y5g.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org Liran Alon writes: > Hi, > > This patch series aims to add a vmx test to verify the functionality > introduced by KVM commit: > 4b9852f4f389 ("KVM: x86: Fix INIT signal handling in various CPU states") > > The test verifies the following functionality: > 1) An INIT signal received when CPU is in VMX operation > is latched until it exits VMX operation. > 2) If there is an INIT signal pending when CPU is in > VMX non-root mode, it result in VMExit with (reason == 3). > 3) Exit from VMX non-root mode on VMExit do not clear > pending INIT signal in LAPIC. > 4) When CPU exits VMX operation, pending INIT signal in > LAPIC is processed. > > In order to write such a complex test, the vmx tests framework was > enhanced to support using VMX in non BSP CPUs. This enhancement is > implemented in patches 1-7. The test itself is implemented at patch 8. > This enhancement to the vmx tests framework is a bit hackish, but > I believe it's OK because this functionality is rarely required by > other VMX tests. > Tested-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov Thanks! -- Vitaly