Hi Paolo,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:34:20AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>Il 19/08/2014 10:30, Wanpeng Li ha scritto:
>> +            if (vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page)
>> +                    nested_release_page(vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page);
>> +            vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page =
>> +               nested_get_page(vcpu, vmcs12->virtual_apic_page_addr);
>> +            if (!vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page)
>> +                    exec_control &=
>> +                            ~CPU_BASED_TPR_SHADOW;
>> +            else
>> +                    vmcs_write64(VIRTUAL_APIC_PAGE_ADDR,
>> +                            page_to_phys(vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page));
>> +
>> +            /*
>> +             * If CR8 load exits are enabled, CR8 store exits are enabled,
>> +             * and virtualize APIC access is disabled, the processor would
>> +             * never notice. Doing it unconditionally is not correct, but
>> +             * it is the simplest thing.
>> +             */
>> +            if (!(exec_control & CPU_BASED_TPR_SHADOW) &&
>> +                    !((exec_control & CPU_BASED_CR8_LOAD_EXITING) &&
>> +                            (exec_control & CPU_BASED_CR8_STORE_EXITING)))
>> +                    nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu, 
>> VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD);
>> +
>
>You aren't checking "virtualize APIC access" here, but the comment
>mentions it.
>
>As the comment says, failing the entry unconditionally could be the
>simplest thing, which means moving the nested_vmx_failValid call inside
>the "if (!vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page)".
>
>If you want to check all of CR8_LOAD/CR8_STORE/VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESS,
>please mention in the comment that failing the vm entry is _not_ what
>the processor does but it's basically the only possibility we have.  In
>that case, I would also place the "if" within the "if
>(!vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page)": it also simplifies the condition
>because you don't have to check CPU_BASED_TPR_SHADOW anymore.
>
>You can send v5 with these changes, and I'll apply it for 3.18.  Thanks!
>

Do you mean this? 

+       /*
+        * Failing the vm entry is _not_ what the processor does
+        * but it's basically the only possibility we have.
+        */
+       if (!vmx->nested.virtual_apic_page)
+               nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu, VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD);

Regards,
Wanpeng Li 

>Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to