Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 0/2] x86/svm: Add testing for L1 intercept bug

[Yosry Ahmed <yosry@kernel.org>]

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 10:49:06AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 01:43:22 +0000, Kevin Cheng wrote:
> > If a feature is not advertised to L1, L1 intercepts for instructions
> > controlled by this feature should be ignored. Currently, the added test
> > fails due to a bug in nested vm exit handling where vmcb12 intercepts
> > are checked before vmcb02 intercepts, causing the #UD exception to never
> > be injected into L2 if the L1 intercept is set. This is fixed in [0]
> > 
> > The first patch just adds the missing intercepts needed for testing and
> > restructures the vmcb_control_area struct to make adding the missing
> > intercepts less ugly. The second patch adds the test which disables all
> > relevant features that have available instruction intercepts, and checks
> > that the #UD exception is correctly delivered despite the L1 intercept
> > being set.
> > 
> > [...]
> 
> Applied to kvm-x86 next, even though the SKINIT test fails on the Turin system
> available to me.  AIUI, there's a ucode bug or something for pre-production
> hardware?
> 
> Anyways, I mention that because if others see failures, then we'll probably
> need to figure out a way to automatically skip the SKINIT test (or maybe eat
> the #GP and treat it as XFAIL?).
> 
> [1/2] x86/svm: Add missing svm intercepts
>       https://github.com/kvm-x86/kvm-unit-tests/commit/8322ddeda22b

So I believe there is no need to split that patch anymore since you
already applied it, right?

Also, I think there was a newer version of this series:
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20260312204009.3168871-1-chengkev@google.com/

> [2/2] x86/svm: Add unsupported instruction intercept test
>       https://github.com/kvm-x86/kvm-unit-tests/commit/7586f98f809e
> 
> --
> https://github.com/kvm-x86/kvm-unit-tests/tree/next