From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>, Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>,
Zhang Yang <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] KVM: nVMX: nested TPR shadow/threshold emulation
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:59:14 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140820065914.GA11546@kernel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53F30C0C.9040601@redhat.com>
Hi Paolo,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:34:20AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>Il 19/08/2014 10:30, Wanpeng Li ha scritto:
>> + if (vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page)
>> + nested_release_page(vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page);
>> + vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page =
>> + nested_get_page(vcpu, vmcs12->virtual_apic_page_addr);
>> + if (!vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page)
>> + exec_control &=
>> + ~CPU_BASED_TPR_SHADOW;
>> + else
>> + vmcs_write64(VIRTUAL_APIC_PAGE_ADDR,
>> + page_to_phys(vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page));
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If CR8 load exits are enabled, CR8 store exits are enabled,
>> + * and virtualize APIC access is disabled, the processor would
>> + * never notice. Doing it unconditionally is not correct, but
>> + * it is the simplest thing.
>> + */
>> + if (!(exec_control & CPU_BASED_TPR_SHADOW) &&
>> + !((exec_control & CPU_BASED_CR8_LOAD_EXITING) &&
>> + (exec_control & CPU_BASED_CR8_STORE_EXITING)))
>> + nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu, VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD);
>> +
>
>You aren't checking "virtualize APIC access" here, but the comment
>mentions it.
>
>As the comment says, failing the entry unconditionally could be the
>simplest thing, which means moving the nested_vmx_failValid call inside
>the "if (!vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page)".
>
>If you want to check all of CR8_LOAD/CR8_STORE/VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESS,
>please mention in the comment that failing the vm entry is _not_ what
>the processor does but it's basically the only possibility we have. In
>that case, I would also place the "if" within the "if
>(!vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page)": it also simplifies the condition
>because you don't have to check CPU_BASED_TPR_SHADOW anymore.
>
>You can send v5 with these changes, and I'll apply it for 3.18. Thanks!
>
Do you mean this?
+ /*
+ * Failing the vm entry is _not_ what the processor does
+ * but it's basically the only possibility we have.
+ */
+ if (!vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page)
+ nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu, VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD);
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
>Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-20 6:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-19 8:30 [PATCH v4] KVM: nVMX: nested TPR shadow/threshold emulation Wanpeng Li
2014-08-19 8:34 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-08-20 6:59 ` Wanpeng Li [this message]
2014-08-20 7:42 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140820065914.GA11546@kernel \
--to=wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bsd@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@kernel.org \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=yang.z.zhang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox