From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-coco@lists.linux.dev>,
<kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] KVM: x86: Extract VMXON and EFER.SVME enablement to kernel
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:48:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aTe4QyE3h8LHOAMb@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251206011054.494190-3-seanjc@google.com>
>--- /dev/null
>+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/virt.h
>@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
>+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
>+#ifndef _ASM_X86_VIRT_H
>+#define _ASM_X86_VIRT_H
>+
>+#include <asm/reboot.h>
asm/reboot.h isn't used.
>+
>+typedef void (cpu_emergency_virt_cb)(void);
>+
>+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_X86)
>+extern bool virt_rebooting;
>+
>+void __init x86_virt_init(void);
>+
>+int x86_virt_get_cpu(int feat);
>+void x86_virt_put_cpu(int feat);
>+
>+int x86_virt_emergency_disable_virtualization_cpu(void);
>+
>+void x86_virt_register_emergency_callback(cpu_emergency_virt_cb *callback);
>+void x86_virt_unregister_emergency_callback(cpu_emergency_virt_cb *callback);
>+#else
>+static __always_inline void x86_virt_init(void) {}
Why does this need to be "__always_inline" rather than just "inline"?
> static void emergency_reboot_disable_virtualization(void)
> {
> local_irq_disable();
>@@ -587,16 +543,11 @@ static void emergency_reboot_disable_virtualization(void)
> * We can't take any locks and we may be on an inconsistent state, so
> * use NMIs as IPIs to tell the other CPUs to disable VMX/SVM and halt.
> *
>- * Do the NMI shootdown even if virtualization is off on _this_ CPU, as
>- * other CPUs may have virtualization enabled.
>+ * Safely force _this_ CPU out of VMX/SVM operation, and if necessary,
>+ * blast NMIs to force other CPUs out of VMX/SVM as well.k
^ stray "k".
I don't understand the "if necessary" part. My understanding is this code
issues NMIs if CPUs support VMX or SVM. If so, I think the code snippet below
would be more readable:
if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_VMX) ||
cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SVM)) {
x86_virt_emergency_disable_virtualization_cpu();
nmi_shootdown_cpus_on_restart();
}
Then x86_virt_emergency_disable_virtualization_cpu() wouldn't need to return
anything. And readers wouldn't need to trace down the function to understand
when NMIs are "necessary" and when they are not.
> */
>- if (rcu_access_pointer(cpu_emergency_virt_callback)) {
>- /* Safely force _this_ CPU out of VMX/SVM operation. */
>- cpu_emergency_disable_virtualization();
>-
>- /* Disable VMX/SVM and halt on other CPUs. */
>+ if (!x86_virt_emergency_disable_virtualization_cpu())
> nmi_shootdown_cpus_on_restart();
>- }
> }
<snip>
>+#define x86_virt_call(fn) \
>+({ \
>+ int __r; \
>+ \
>+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_INTEL) && \
>+ cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_VMX)) \
>+ __r = x86_vmx_##fn(); \
>+ else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_AMD) && \
>+ cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SVM)) \
>+ __r = x86_svm_##fn(); \
>+ else \
>+ __r = -EOPNOTSUPP; \
>+ \
>+ __r; \
>+})
>+
>+int x86_virt_get_cpu(int feat)
>+{
>+ int r;
>+
>+ if (!x86_virt_feature || x86_virt_feature != feat)
>+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>+
>+ if (this_cpu_inc_return(virtualization_nr_users) > 1)
>+ return 0;
Should we assert that preemption is disabled? Calling this API when preemption
is enabled is wrong.
Maybe use __this_cpu_inc_return(), which already verifies preemption status.
<snip>
>+int x86_virt_emergency_disable_virtualization_cpu(void)
>+{
>+ if (!x86_virt_feature)
>+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>+
>+ /*
>+ * IRQs must be disabled as virtualization is enabled in hardware via
>+ * function call IPIs, i.e. IRQs need to be disabled to guarantee
>+ * virtualization stays disabled.
>+ */
>+ lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
>+
>+ /*
>+ * Do the NMI shootdown even if virtualization is off on _this_ CPU, as
>+ * other CPUs may have virtualization enabled.
>+ *
>+ * TODO: Track whether or not virtualization might be enabled on other
>+ * CPUs? May not be worth avoiding the NMI shootdown...
>+ */
This comment is misplaced. NMIs are issued by the caller.
>+ (void)x86_virt_call(emergency_disable_virtualization_cpu);
>+ return 0;
>+}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-09 5:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-06 1:10 [PATCH v2 0/7] KVM: x86/tdx: Have TDX handle VMXON during bringup Sean Christopherson
2025-12-06 1:10 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: x86: Move kvm_rebooting to x86 Sean Christopherson
2025-12-09 7:46 ` Chao Gao
2026-01-05 17:48 ` Dave Hansen
2025-12-06 1:10 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] KVM: x86: Extract VMXON and EFER.SVME enablement to kernel Sean Christopherson
2025-12-07 7:22 ` dan.j.williams
2025-12-09 20:01 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-10 7:41 ` dan.j.williams
2025-12-10 14:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-24 11:07 ` Xu Yilun
2025-12-30 22:59 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-09 5:48 ` Chao Gao [this message]
2025-12-17 6:57 ` Xu Yilun
2025-12-17 19:01 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-19 2:14 ` Xu Yilun
2025-12-19 15:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-19 17:30 ` Dave Hansen
2025-12-19 21:12 ` Huang, Kai
2026-01-27 2:46 ` Binbin Wu
2025-12-19 17:45 ` Dave Hansen
2025-12-19 18:35 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-19 18:48 ` Dave Hansen
2025-12-06 1:10 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] KVM: x86/tdx: Do VMXON and TDX-Module initialization during subsys init Sean Christopherson
2025-12-07 7:25 ` dan.j.williams
2025-12-08 23:17 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-09 1:34 ` dan.j.williams
2025-12-09 7:06 ` Chao Gao
2025-12-12 18:56 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-06 1:10 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] x86/virt/tdx: Tag a pile of functions as __init, and globals as __ro_after_init Sean Christopherson
2025-12-09 4:17 ` dan.j.williams
2025-12-09 7:26 ` Chao Gao
2025-12-06 1:10 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] x86/virt/tdx: KVM: Consolidate TDX CPU hotplug handling Sean Christopherson
2025-12-09 4:19 ` dan.j.williams
2025-12-06 1:10 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] x86/virt/tdx: Use ida_is_empty() to detect if any TDs may be running Sean Christopherson
2025-12-09 4:19 ` dan.j.williams
2025-12-09 7:33 ` Chao Gao
2025-12-06 1:10 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] KVM: Bury kvm_{en,dis}able_virtualization() in kvm_main.c once more Sean Christopherson
2025-12-09 4:20 ` dan.j.williams
2025-12-09 7:37 ` Chao Gao
2025-12-08 2:49 ` [PATCH v2 0/7] KVM: x86/tdx: Have TDX handle VMXON during bringup Chao Gao
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=aTe4QyE3h8LHOAMb@intel.com \
--to=chao.gao@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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