| Message ID | 20221117143242.102721-13-mlevitsk@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | SVM: vNMI (with my fixes) | expand |
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > From: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@amd.com> > > If NMI virtualization enabled and NMI_INTERCEPT is unset then next vm > entry will exit with #INVALID exit reason. > > In order to emulate above (VMEXIT(#INVALID)) scenario for nested > environment, extending check for V_NMI_ENABLE, NMI_INTERCEPT bit in func > __nested_vmcb_check_controls. This belongs in the previous patch, no? I don't see how this isn't just a natural part of supporting nested vNMI. > Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@amd.com> > Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com> > --- > arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c > index c9fcdd691bb5a1..3ef7e1971a4709 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c > @@ -275,6 +275,11 @@ static bool __nested_vmcb_check_controls(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > if (CC(!nested_svm_check_tlb_ctl(vcpu, control->tlb_ctl))) > return false; > > + if (CC((control->int_ctl & V_NMI_ENABLE) && > + !vmcb12_is_intercept(control, INTERCEPT_NMI))) { Alignment is off by one: if (CC((control->int_ctl & V_NMI_ENABLE) && !vmcb12_is_intercept(control, INTERCEPT_NMI))) { return false; } > + return false; > + } > + > return true; > } > > -- > 2.34.3 >
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c index c9fcdd691bb5a1..3ef7e1971a4709 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c @@ -275,6 +275,11 @@ static bool __nested_vmcb_check_controls(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, if (CC(!nested_svm_check_tlb_ctl(vcpu, control->tlb_ctl))) return false; + if (CC((control->int_ctl & V_NMI_ENABLE) && + !vmcb12_is_intercept(control, INTERCEPT_NMI))) { + return false; + } + return true; }