[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: X86: Move ignore_msrs handling upper the stack
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 05:09:19PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> Again, using host_initiated or not should be a different issue? Frankly
> speaking, I don't know whether it's an issue or not, but it's different from
> what this series wants to do, because it'll be the same before/after this
> series. Am I right?

I'm arguing that the TSX thing should be

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
index 5eb618dbf211..e1fd5ac0df96 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
@@ -1015,7 +1015,7 @@ bool kvm_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 *eax, u32 *ebx,
*edx = entry->edx;
if (function == 7 && index == 0) {
u64 data;
- if (!__kvm_get_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_TSX_CTRL, &data, true) &&
+ if (!kvm_get_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_TSX_CTRL, &data) &&
*ebx &= ~(F(RTM) | F(HLE));
At which point hoisting the ignored message up a few levels is pointless
because the only users of __kvm_*et_msr() will do the explicit ignored_check.
And I'm also arguing that KVM should never use __kvm_get_msr() for its own
actions, as host_initiated=true should only be used for host VMM accesses and
host_initiated=false actions should go through the proper checks and never
get to the ignored_msrs logic (assuming no KVM bug).

> Or, please explain what's the "overruled objection" that you're talking about..

Sean: Objection your honor.
Paolo: Overruled, you're wrong.
Sean: Phooey.

My point is that even though I still object to this series, Paolo has final

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-09 23:27    [W:0.114 / U:1.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site