Re: [PATCH v3 03/27] KVM: VMX: Add support for the secondary VM exit controls

[Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 10:03:45AM -0700, Xin Li wrote:
>On 10/21/2024 1:28 AM, Chao Gao wrote:
>> > +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vmcs_entry_exit_triplets); i++) {
>> > +		u32 n_ctrl = vmcs_entry_exit_triplets[i].entry_control;
>> > +		u32 x_ctrl = vmcs_entry_exit_triplets[i].exit_control;
>> > +		u64 x_ctrl_2 = vmcs_entry_exit_triplets[i].exit_2nd_control;
>> > +		bool has_n = n_ctrl && ((_vmentry_control & n_ctrl) == n_ctrl);
>> > +		bool has_x = x_ctrl && ((_vmexit_control & x_ctrl) == x_ctrl);
>> > +		bool has_x_2 = x_ctrl_2 && ((_secondary_vmexit_control & x_ctrl_2) == x_ctrl_2);
>> > +
>> > +		if (x_ctrl_2) {
>> > +			/* Only activate secondary VM exit control bit should be set */
>> > +			if ((_vmexit_control & x_ctrl) == VM_EXIT_ACTIVATE_SECONDARY_CONTROLS) {
>> > +				if (has_n == has_x_2)
>> > +					continue;
>> > +			} else {
>> > +				/* The feature should not be supported in any control */
>> > +				if (!has_n && !has_x && !has_x_2)
>> > +					continue;
>> > +			}
>> > +		} else if (has_n == has_x) {
>> > 			continue;
>> > +		}
>> > 
>> > -		pr_warn_once("Inconsistent VM-Entry/VM-Exit pair, entry = %x, exit = %x\n",
>> > -			     _vmentry_control & n_ctrl, _vmexit_control & x_ctrl);
>> > +		pr_warn_once("Inconsistent VM-Entry/VM-Exit triplet, entry = %x, exit = %x, secondary_exit = %llx\n",
>> > +			     _vmentry_control & n_ctrl, _vmexit_control & x_ctrl,
>> > +			     _secondary_vmexit_control & x_ctrl_2);
>> > 
>> > 		if (error_on_inconsistent_vmcs_config)
>> > 			return -EIO;
>> > 
>> > 		_vmentry_control &= ~n_ctrl;
>> > 		_vmexit_control &= ~x_ctrl;
>> 
>> w/ patch 4, VM_EXIT_ACTIVATE_SECONDARY_CONTROLS is cleared if FRED fails in the
>> consistent check. this means, all features in the secondary vm-exit controls
>> are removed. it is overkill.
>
>Good catch!
>
>> 
>> I prefer to maintain a separate table for the secondary VM-exit controls:
>> 
>>   	struct {
>>   		u32 entry_control;
>>   		u64 exit2_control;
>> 	} const vmcs_entry_exit2_pairs[] = {
>> 		{ VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_FRED, SECONDARY_VM_EXIT_SAVE_IA32_FRED |
>> 					   SECONDARY_VM_EXIT_LOAD_IA32_FRED},
>> 	};
>> 
>> 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vmcs_entry_exit2_pairs); i++) {
>> 	...
>> 	}
>
>Hmm, I prefer one table, as it's more straight forward.

One table is fine if we can fix the issue and improve readability. The three
nested if() statements hurts readability.

I just thought using two tables would eliminate the need for any if() statements.