From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C32402FE591 for ; Wed, 27 May 2026 22:00:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779919221; cv=none; b=jQ1g3/btQ+2NuUoAd1acnTb/8KKRW27RvYmIPzsptXtLoDL+bUOWh2RtqlJNOdVFjMxMpp1E7WZjodhA2fhuHJOR6EkqxjGw1Gkpgv32PdTjxOZ89ym1N8LAOT+nSUGINLCfeSMGOn3C0SkXO35RUTYkR/7hWov8mGEbn3YQ+1I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779919221; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Jj39zL+GJV5pz6XfWlGleOq47XrMqaJoeqC5FiYFqWQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fPmMd5H2/A0zkmN90/D7L5cROMGUm88csJBFxIydHl1azE1BAIsuB3vuIt8s8Gs483riDL6ECdgpWWunoLQ2c2YJA+ssljBJAlSun1sHm9iN46X7c3ikoeoYj3BqrAkNjJh3fmNrnOttVlvQaGhMdr1DUhRHMd9D12n/iApxzH0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=kIdQ8Ryp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="kIdQ8Ryp" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34AF51F000E9; Wed, 27 May 2026 22:00:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1779919220; bh=TgK7nby6kRUgli945kcu99QXGXKnFG1K2WCPKStffaE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=kIdQ8RypjArWrLwgdRgDxqtqCW1q8wq5pSjBPwrN3iKtdkGz0MF/z+W9ivfAjOkRH 2ea5r6S8q2nUjS1oF2eD/4SL+HiQ0+ITtbh2YHx6aVdqJFk52PUniWbGe7eBAKf6ev dndHxWCn53zzTKJHuTRaT0lvJ9Ca5G9MC+Ip2XaNYqK3lsHTi7ZSJV8DTaQFL25MYB cLPr2/1rATNipRS3x+ITj6btd/euRpD60CC+siGVczJUlsHhl7C+0xTCpEhSC1/HDg QfJs1UiuR4oApa2fCYcTLeUcaZfWMFVq/RZUBqtidd88tCIp61XD8BkLgCVsyecd8t w0COSF2fDrHFg== Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 22:00:18 +0000 From: Yosry Ahmed To: Sean Christopherson Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Cheng , andrew.jones@linux.dev, thuth@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 0/2] x86/svm: Add testing for L1 intercept bug Message-ID: References: <20251224014324.1307211-1-chengkev@google.com> <177989663546.4071483.13324448017637391219.b4-ty@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <177989663546.4071483.13324448017637391219.b4-ty@google.com> 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