[PATCH] KVM: x86: Remove outdated comments and code in kvm_on_user_return()

[PATCH] KVM: x86: Remove outdated comments and code in kvm_on_user_return()

[Hou Wenlong]

The commit a377ac1cd9d7b ("x86/entry: Move user return notifier out of
loop") moved fire_user_return_notifiers() into the section with
interrupts disabled, so the callback kvm_on_user_return() cannot be
interrupted by kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu() now. Therefore,
remove the outdated comments and local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore()
code in kvm_on_user_return().

Signed-off-by: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 16 +++++-----------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 33fba801b205..10afbacb1851 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -568,18 +568,12 @@ static void kvm_on_user_return(struct user_return_notifier *urn)
 	struct kvm_user_return_msrs *msrs
 		= container_of(urn, struct kvm_user_return_msrs, urn);
 	struct kvm_user_return_msr_values *values;
-	unsigned long flags;

-	/*
-	 * Disabling irqs at this point since the following code could be
-	 * interrupted and executed through kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu()
-	 */
-	local_irq_save(flags);
-	if (msrs->registered) {
-		msrs->registered = false;
-		user_return_notifier_unregister(urn);
-	}
-	local_irq_restore(flags);
+	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
+
+	msrs->registered = false;
+	user_return_notifier_unregister(urn);
+
 	for (slot = 0; slot < kvm_nr_uret_msrs; ++slot) {
 		values = &msrs->values[slot];
 		if (values->host != values->curr) {
--
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Remove outdated comments and code in kvm_on_user_return()

[Chao Gao]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 03:35:29PM +0800, Hou Wenlong wrote:
>The commit a377ac1cd9d7b ("x86/entry: Move user return notifier out of
>loop") moved fire_user_return_notifiers() into the section with
>interrupts disabled, so the callback kvm_on_user_return() cannot be
>interrupted by kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu() now. Therefore,
>remove the outdated comments and local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore()
>code in kvm_on_user_return().
>
>Signed-off-by: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>
>---
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 16 +++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>index 33fba801b205..10afbacb1851 100644
>--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>@@ -568,18 +568,12 @@ static void kvm_on_user_return(struct user_return_notifier *urn)
> 	struct kvm_user_return_msrs *msrs
> 		= container_of(urn, struct kvm_user_return_msrs, urn);
> 	struct kvm_user_return_msr_values *values;
>-	unsigned long flags;
>
>-	/*
>-	 * Disabling irqs at this point since the following code could be
>-	 * interrupted and executed through kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu()
>-	 */
>-	local_irq_save(flags);
>-	if (msrs->registered) {
>-		msrs->registered = false;
>-		user_return_notifier_unregister(urn);
>-	}
>-	local_irq_restore(flags);
>+	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();

kvm_offline_cpu() may call into this function. But I am not sure if interrupts
are disabled in that path.

Documentation/core-api/cpu_hotplug.rst says that callbacks in the ONLINE section
are invoked with interrupts and preemption enabled.

>+
>+	msrs->registered = false;
>+	user_return_notifier_unregister(urn);
>+
> 	for (slot = 0; slot < kvm_nr_uret_msrs; ++slot) {
> 		values = &msrs->values[slot];
> 		if (values->host != values->curr) {
>--
>2.31.1
>
>

Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Remove outdated comments and code in kvm_on_user_return()

[Hou Wenlong]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 04:35:00PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 03:35:29PM +0800, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> >The commit a377ac1cd9d7b ("x86/entry: Move user return notifier out of
> >loop") moved fire_user_return_notifiers() into the section with
> >interrupts disabled, so the callback kvm_on_user_return() cannot be
> >interrupted by kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu() now. Therefore,
> >remove the outdated comments and local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore()
> >code in kvm_on_user_return().
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>
> >---
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 16 +++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >index 33fba801b205..10afbacb1851 100644
> >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >@@ -568,18 +568,12 @@ static void kvm_on_user_return(struct user_return_notifier *urn)
> > 	struct kvm_user_return_msrs *msrs
> > 		= container_of(urn, struct kvm_user_return_msrs, urn);
> > 	struct kvm_user_return_msr_values *values;
> >-	unsigned long flags;
> >
> >-	/*
> >-	 * Disabling irqs at this point since the following code could be
> >-	 * interrupted and executed through kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu()
> >-	 */
> >-	local_irq_save(flags);
> >-	if (msrs->registered) {
> >-		msrs->registered = false;
> >-		user_return_notifier_unregister(urn);
> >-	}
> >-	local_irq_restore(flags);
> >+	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> 
> kvm_offline_cpu() may call into this function. But I am not sure if interrupts
> are disabled in that path.
>
Thanks for pointing that out. I see that interrupts are enabled in the
callback during the CPU offline test. I'll remove the
lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() here.
 
> Documentation/core-api/cpu_hotplug.rst says that callbacks in the ONLINE section
> are invoked with interrupts and preemption enabled.
> 
> >+
> >+	msrs->registered = false;
> >+	user_return_notifier_unregister(urn);
> >+
> > 	for (slot = 0; slot < kvm_nr_uret_msrs; ++slot) {
> > 		values = &msrs->values[slot];
> > 		if (values->host != values->curr) {
> >--
> >2.31.1
> >
> >

Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Remove outdated comments and code in kvm_on_user_return()

[Hou Wenlong]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 05:38:22PM +0800, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 04:35:00PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 03:35:29PM +0800, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> > >The commit a377ac1cd9d7b ("x86/entry: Move user return notifier out of
> > >loop") moved fire_user_return_notifiers() into the section with
> > >interrupts disabled, so the callback kvm_on_user_return() cannot be
> > >interrupted by kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu() now. Therefore,
> > >remove the outdated comments and local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore()
> > >code in kvm_on_user_return().
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>
> > >---
> > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 16 +++++-----------
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > >index 33fba801b205..10afbacb1851 100644
> > >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > >@@ -568,18 +568,12 @@ static void kvm_on_user_return(struct user_return_notifier *urn)
> > > 	struct kvm_user_return_msrs *msrs
> > > 		= container_of(urn, struct kvm_user_return_msrs, urn);
> > > 	struct kvm_user_return_msr_values *values;
> > >-	unsigned long flags;
> > >
> > >-	/*
> > >-	 * Disabling irqs at this point since the following code could be
> > >-	 * interrupted and executed through kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu()
> > >-	 */
> > >-	local_irq_save(flags);
> > >-	if (msrs->registered) {
> > >-		msrs->registered = false;
> > >-		user_return_notifier_unregister(urn);
> > >-	}
> > >-	local_irq_restore(flags);
> > >+	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> > 
> > kvm_offline_cpu() may call into this function. But I am not sure if interrupts
> > are disabled in that path.
> >
> Thanks for pointing that out. I see that interrupts are enabled in the
> callback during the CPU offline test. I'll remove the
> lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() here.
>

Upon a second look, can we just disable interrupts in kvm_cpu_offline()?
The other paths that call kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu() are all in an
interrupt-disabled state, although it seems that
kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu() cannot be reentered.
  
> > Documentation/core-api/cpu_hotplug.rst says that callbacks in the ONLINE section
> > are invoked with interrupts and preemption enabled.
> > 
> > >+
> > >+	msrs->registered = false;
> > >+	user_return_notifier_unregister(urn);
> > >+
> > > 	for (slot = 0; slot < kvm_nr_uret_msrs; ++slot) {
> > > 		values = &msrs->values[slot];
> > > 		if (values->host != values->curr) {
> > >--
> > >2.31.1
> > >
> > >

Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Remove outdated comments and code in kvm_on_user_return()

[Sean Christopherson]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 05:38:22PM +0800, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 04:35:00PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 03:35:29PM +0800, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> > > >The commit a377ac1cd9d7b ("x86/entry: Move user return notifier out of
> > > >loop") moved fire_user_return_notifiers() into the section with
> > > >interrupts disabled, so the callback kvm_on_user_return() cannot be
> > > >interrupted by kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu() now. Therefore,
> > > >remove the outdated comments and local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore()
> > > >code in kvm_on_user_return().
> > > >
> > > >Signed-off-by: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>
> > > >---
> > > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 16 +++++-----------
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > >index 33fba801b205..10afbacb1851 100644
> > > >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > >@@ -568,18 +568,12 @@ static void kvm_on_user_return(struct user_return_notifier *urn)
> > > > 	struct kvm_user_return_msrs *msrs
> > > > 		= container_of(urn, struct kvm_user_return_msrs, urn);
> > > > 	struct kvm_user_return_msr_values *values;
> > > >-	unsigned long flags;
> > > >
> > > >-	/*
> > > >-	 * Disabling irqs at this point since the following code could be
> > > >-	 * interrupted and executed through kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu()
> > > >-	 */
> > > >-	local_irq_save(flags);
> > > >-	if (msrs->registered) {
> > > >-		msrs->registered = false;
> > > >-		user_return_notifier_unregister(urn);
> > > >-	}
> > > >-	local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > >+	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> > > 
> > > kvm_offline_cpu() may call into this function. But I am not sure if interrupts
> > > are disabled in that path.
> > >
> > Thanks for pointing that out. I see that interrupts are enabled in the
> > callback during the CPU offline test. I'll remove the
> > lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() here.
> >
> 
> Upon a second look, can we just disable interrupts in kvm_cpu_offline()?
> The other paths that call kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu() are all in an
> interrupt-disabled state, although it seems that
> kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu() cannot be reentered.

Why do we care?  I.e. what is the motivation for changing this code?  I'm hesitant
to touch this code without good reason given its fragility and subtlety.

Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Remove outdated comments and code in kvm_on_user_return()

[Hou Wenlong]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 07:40:43AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 05:38:22PM +0800, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 04:35:00PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 03:35:29PM +0800, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> > > > >The commit a377ac1cd9d7b ("x86/entry: Move user return notifier out of
> > > > >loop") moved fire_user_return_notifiers() into the section with
> > > > >interrupts disabled, so the callback kvm_on_user_return() cannot be
> > > > >interrupted by kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu() now. Therefore,
> > > > >remove the outdated comments and local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore()
> > > > >code in kvm_on_user_return().
> > > > >
> > > > >Signed-off-by: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>
> > > > >---
> > > > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 16 +++++-----------
> > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > >index 33fba801b205..10afbacb1851 100644
> > > > >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > >@@ -568,18 +568,12 @@ static void kvm_on_user_return(struct user_return_notifier *urn)
> > > > > 	struct kvm_user_return_msrs *msrs
> > > > > 		= container_of(urn, struct kvm_user_return_msrs, urn);
> > > > > 	struct kvm_user_return_msr_values *values;
> > > > >-	unsigned long flags;
> > > > >
> > > > >-	/*
> > > > >-	 * Disabling irqs at this point since the following code could be
> > > > >-	 * interrupted and executed through kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu()
> > > > >-	 */
> > > > >-	local_irq_save(flags);
> > > > >-	if (msrs->registered) {
> > > > >-		msrs->registered = false;
> > > > >-		user_return_notifier_unregister(urn);
> > > > >-	}
> > > > >-	local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > > >+	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> > > > 
> > > > kvm_offline_cpu() may call into this function. But I am not sure if interrupts
> > > > are disabled in that path.
> > > >
> > > Thanks for pointing that out. I see that interrupts are enabled in the
> > > callback during the CPU offline test. I'll remove the
> > > lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() here.
> > >
> > 
> > Upon a second look, can we just disable interrupts in kvm_cpu_offline()?
> > The other paths that call kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu() are all in an
> > interrupt-disabled state, although it seems that
> > kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu() cannot be reentered.
> 
> Why do we care?  I.e. what is the motivation for changing this code?  I'm hesitant
> to touch this code without good reason given its fragility and subtlety.
Hi, Sean.

I'm just reworking the shared MSRs part in our inner multi-KVM. First, I
noticed that the comment mentions that kvm_on_user_return() can be
interrupted or reentered, which is a little confusing to me. Then, I
found that the comment is outdated, so I decided to remove it and also
make changes to the code. I agree that this code is fragile, maybe
just change the comment?

Thanks!

Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Remove outdated comments and code in kvm_on_user_return()

[Sean Christopherson]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2025, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 07:40:43AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 05:38:22PM +0800, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 04:35:00PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 03:35:29PM +0800, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> > > > > >The commit a377ac1cd9d7b ("x86/entry: Move user return notifier out of
> > > > > >loop") moved fire_user_return_notifiers() into the section with
> > > > > >interrupts disabled, so the callback kvm_on_user_return() cannot be
> > > > > >interrupted by kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu() now. Therefore,
> > > > > >remove the outdated comments and local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore()
> > > > > >code in kvm_on_user_return().
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Signed-off-by: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>
> > > > > >---
> > > > > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 16 +++++-----------
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > > >index 33fba801b205..10afbacb1851 100644
> > > > > >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > > >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > > >@@ -568,18 +568,12 @@ static void kvm_on_user_return(struct user_return_notifier *urn)
> > > > > > 	struct kvm_user_return_msrs *msrs
> > > > > > 		= container_of(urn, struct kvm_user_return_msrs, urn);
> > > > > > 	struct kvm_user_return_msr_values *values;
> > > > > >-	unsigned long flags;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-	/*
> > > > > >-	 * Disabling irqs at this point since the following code could be
> > > > > >-	 * interrupted and executed through kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu()
> > > > > >-	 */
> > > > > >-	local_irq_save(flags);
> > > > > >-	if (msrs->registered) {
> > > > > >-		msrs->registered = false;
> > > > > >-		user_return_notifier_unregister(urn);
> > > > > >-	}
> > > > > >-	local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > > > >+	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> > > > > 
> > > > > kvm_offline_cpu() may call into this function. But I am not sure if interrupts
> > > > > are disabled in that path.
> > > > >
> > > > Thanks for pointing that out. I see that interrupts are enabled in the
> > > > callback during the CPU offline test. I'll remove the
> > > > lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() here.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Upon a second look, can we just disable interrupts in kvm_cpu_offline()?
> > > The other paths that call kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu() are all in an
> > > interrupt-disabled state, although it seems that
> > > kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu() cannot be reentered.
> > 
> > Why do we care?  I.e. what is the motivation for changing this code?  I'm hesitant
> > to touch this code without good reason given its fragility and subtlety.
> Hi, Sean.
> 
> I'm just reworking the shared MSRs part in our inner multi-KVM. First, I
> noticed that the comment mentions that kvm_on_user_return() can be
> interrupted or reentered, which is a little confusing to me. Then, I
> found that the comment is outdated, so I decided to remove it and also
> make changes to the code. I agree that this code is fragile, maybe
> just change the comment?

I'm not opposed to making changes, I just don't want to do so without reason.
"This is ridiculously confusing" is a good enough reason :-)  Hmm, and disabling
IRQs in that path might technically be a bug fix.

I think the main reason this got especially confusing is that commit a377ac1cd9d7
("x86/entry: Move user return notifier out of loop") somewhat inadvertantly fixed
the underlying issue that was papered over by 1650b4ebc99d ("KVM: Disable irq while
unregistering user notifier").

And then commit 9a798b1337af ("KVM: Register cpuhp and syscore callbacks when
enabling hardware") removed KVM's "normal" path use of IPIs to enable/disable
virtualization.

As a result, KVM is left with a rather uncommon corner case of reboot being the
only way for kvm_on_user_return() to be interrupted.  For the life of me, I can't
tell whether or not CPU (un)hotplug paths run with IRQs disabled.  I know at
least some run in task context, but I've no idea if that applies to CPUHP_AP_KVM_ONLINE.

So, looking at this (yet) again, I'm in favor of doing as you suggest and saving
IRQs in both kvm_online_cpu() and kvm_offline_cpu().  If IRQs aren't guarnateed
to be disabled, I _think_ that's technically a bug fix, because virtualization_enabled
could be stale (with respect to the actual state of hardware) when read from IRQ
context.

Something like this?

---
 arch/x86/kvm/x86.c  | 12 +++++++-----
 virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 10 ++++++++--
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index c78acab2ff3f..067cb66e9c18 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -582,18 +582,20 @@ static void kvm_on_user_return(struct user_return_notifier *urn)
 	struct kvm_user_return_msrs *msrs
 		= container_of(urn, struct kvm_user_return_msrs, urn);
 	struct kvm_user_return_msr_values *values;
-	unsigned long flags;
 
 	/*
-	 * Disabling irqs at this point since the following code could be
-	 * interrupted and executed through kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu()
+	 * Assert that IRQs are disabled.  KVM disables virtualization via IPI
+	 * callback on reboot, and this code isn't safe for re-entrancy, e.g.
+	 * receiving the IRQ after checking "registered" would lead to double
+	 * deletion of KVM's notifier.
 	 */
-	local_irq_save(flags);
+	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
+
 	if (msrs->registered) {
 		msrs->registered = false;
 		user_return_notifier_unregister(urn);
 	}
-	local_irq_restore(flags);
+
 	for (slot = 0; slot < kvm_nr_uret_msrs; ++slot) {
 		values = &msrs->values[slot];
 		if (values->host != values->curr) {
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index fee108988028..1b7d59adc390 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -5581,6 +5581,8 @@ __weak void kvm_arch_disable_virtualization(void)
 
 static int kvm_enable_virtualization_cpu(void)
 {
+	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
+
 	if (__this_cpu_read(virtualization_enabled))
 		return 0;
 
@@ -5596,6 +5598,8 @@ static int kvm_enable_virtualization_cpu(void)
 
 static int kvm_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
 {
+	guard(irqsave)();
+
 	/*
 	 * Abort the CPU online process if hardware virtualization cannot
 	 * be enabled. Otherwise running VMs would encounter unrecoverable
@@ -5606,6 +5610,8 @@ static int kvm_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
 
 static void kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu(void *ign)
 {
+	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
+
 	if (!__this_cpu_read(virtualization_enabled))
 		return;
 
@@ -5616,6 +5622,8 @@ static void kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu(void *ign)
 
 static int kvm_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
 {
+	guard(irqsave)();
+
 	kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu(NULL);
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -5649,7 +5657,6 @@ static int kvm_suspend(void)
 	 * dropped all locks (userspace tasks are frozen via a fake signal).
 	 */
 	lockdep_assert_not_held(&kvm_usage_lock);
-	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
 
 	kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu(NULL);
 	return 0;
@@ -5658,7 +5665,6 @@ static int kvm_suspend(void)
 static void kvm_resume(void)
 {
 	lockdep_assert_not_held(&kvm_usage_lock);
-	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
 
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_enable_virtualization_cpu());
 }

base-commit: 14298d819d5a6b7180a4089e7d2121ca3551dc6c
--