From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=FROM_EXCESS_BASE64, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B497C43144 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:22:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11164247C5 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:22:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 11164247C5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934389AbeFVTW1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 15:22:27 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:41272 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934254AbeFVTW0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 15:22:26 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C0D3401EF2B; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:22:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from flask (unknown [10.43.2.80]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AC10A1C5A3; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:22:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by flask (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:22:22 +0200 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:22:22 +0200 From: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= To: Borislav Petkov Cc: KVM , Joerg Roedel , Tom Lendacky , Tony Luck , Yazen Ghannam , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/kvm: Implement MSR_HWCR support Message-ID: <20180622192222.GA12641@flask> References: <20180622095101.32587-1-bp@alien8.de> <20180622095101.32587-3-bp@alien8.de> <20180622185237.GC5549@flask> <20180622190912.GG1882@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180622190912.GG1882@zn.tnic> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.11.54.5 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.5]); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:22:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.5]); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:22:26 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.5' DOMAIN:'int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'rkrcmar@redhat.com' RCPT:'' Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2018-06-22 21:09+0200, Borislav Petkov: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 08:52:38PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote: > > msr_info->host_initiated is always going to return true, so it would be > > better to put it outside of __set_mci_status. > > > > Maybe we could just write the whole logic inline, otherwise I'd call it > > something like mci_status_is_writeable. > > > > > static int set_msr_mce(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info) > > > { > > > u64 mcg_cap = vcpu->arch.mcg_cap; > > > @@ -2176,9 +2200,13 @@ static int set_msr_mce(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info) > > > if ((offset & 0x3) == 0 && > > > data != 0 && (data | (1 << 10)) != ~(u64)0) > > > return -1; > > > - if (!msr_info->host_initiated && > > > - (offset & 0x3) == 1 && data != 0) > > > - return -1; > > > + > > > + /* MCi_STATUS */ > > > + if ((offset & 0x3) == 1) { > > > + if (!__set_mci_status(vcpu, msr_info)) > > > + return -1; > > > + } > > > > if (!msr_info->host_initiated && > > (offset & 0x3) == 1 && data != 0) { > > struct msr_data tmp = {.index = MSR_K7_HWCR}; > > > > if (!guest_cpuid_is_amd(vcpu) || > > !kvm_x86_ops->get_msr(vcpu, &tmp) || > > !(tmp.data & BIT_ULL(18))) > > return -1; > > Don't you feel it is cleaner if all the MCi_STATUS checking is done in > a separate function? The indentation level and the bunch of checks in > set_msr_mce() make it hard to read while having a separate function > separates it and makes it easier to follow. Yes, I feel the same. > I mean, you're the maintainer but if I may give a suggestion, moving the > whole logic into a separate function would be more readable. > > And then do: > > if (!msr_info->host_initiated) { > if (check_mci_status(...)) > return -1; > } > > Something like that... Much better, thanks.