On 9/7/23 13:12, Gupta, Pankaj wrote:
diff --git a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c
index 5fce74aac5..4d42d3ed4c 100644
--- a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c
+++ b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c
@@ -604,6 +604,10 @@ static void kvm_mce_inject(X86CPU *cpu, hwaddr
paddr, int code)
mcg_status |= MCG_STATUS_RIPV;
}
} else {
+ if (code == BUS_MCEERR_AO) {
+ /* XXX we don't support BUS_MCEERR_AO injection on AMD
yet */
+ return;
+ }
mcg_status |= MCG_STATUS_EIPV | MCG_STATUS_RIPV;
}
@@ -655,7 +659,9 @@ void kvm_arch_on_sigbus_vcpu(CPUState *c, int
code, void *addr)
if (ram_addr != RAM_ADDR_INVALID &&
kvm_physical_memory_addr_from_host(c->kvm_state, addr,
&paddr)) {
kvm_hwpoison_page_add(ram_addr);
- kvm_mce_inject(cpu, paddr, code);
+ if (!IS_AMD_CPU(env) || code != BUS_MCEERR_AO) {
Isn't the 'optional' case we already handle inside kvm_mce_inject()?
So this check seems repetitive to me.
You are right, it is repetitive, but can be considered as a reminder of
the situation and an explanation of the "ignored on AMD guest" message
later in this function.
Of course it can be removed if you think that the code is easier to read
without it. When the AMD BUS_MCEERR_AO support is integrated, both
locations would need to be cleared, but this sounds reasonable to me.
John, it's up to you.
William.
