Message ID | 20221109075413.1405803-1-yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Cleanup VMFUNC handling in KVM. | expand |
On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 03:54:11PM +0800, Yu Zhang wrote: Ping... Thanks! B.R. Yu
On Wed, 09 Nov 2022 15:54:11 +0800, Yu Zhang wrote: > Since VMFUNC is not supported for non-nested guests, and executing VMFUNC > can cause a #UD directly, if the “enable VM functions” VM-execution control > is 0, KVM can just disable it in VM-exectution control, instead of taking > pains to trap it and emulate the #UD for L1 guests. > > Also, simplified the process of setting SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_VMFUNC for > nested VMX MSR configurations. > > [...] After much waffling, applied to kvm-x86 vmx. I ended up keeping the logic to inject #UD on now-unexpected VMFUNC exits from L1, i.e. patch one does nothing more than clear the control bit. I like the idea of clearing the control bit as it more explicitly documents what's going on, but killing the VM on an unexpected exit that KVM can gracefully handle seemed unnecessary. Thanks! [1/2] KVM: VMX: Do not trap VMFUNC instructions for L1 guests. https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/41acdd419735 [2/2] KVM: nVMX: Simplify the setting of SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_VMFUNC for nested. https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/496c917b0989 -- https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/tree/next https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/tree/fixes
> > After much waffling, applied to kvm-x86 vmx. I ended up keeping the logic to > inject #UD on now-unexpected VMFUNC exits from L1, i.e. patch one does nothing > more than clear the control bit. I like the idea of clearing the control bit as > it more explicitly documents what's going on, but killing the VM on an unexpected > exit that KVM can gracefully handle seemed unnecessary. Glad to know that. Thanks! B.R. Yu