[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b3f76acd-cc7e-9cd7-d7f7-404ba756ab87@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:17:29 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, Tao Xu <tao3.xu@...el.com>
Cc: Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: vmx: Fix the broken usage of vmx_xsaves_supported
On 20/06/19 08:46, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>>
>> It depends on whether or not processors support the 1-setting instead
>> of “enable XSAVES/XRSTORS” is 1 in VM-exection control field. Anyway,
>
> Yes, whether this field exist or not depends on whether processors
> support the 1-setting.
>
> But if "enable XSAVES/XRSTORS" is clear to 0, XSS_EXIT_BITMAP doesn't
> work. I think in this case, there is no need to set this vmcs field?
vmx->secondary_exec_control can change; you are making the code more
complex by relying on the value of the field at the point of vmx_vcpu_setup.
I do _think_ your version is incorrect, because at this point CPUID has
not been initialized yet and therefore
vmx_compute_secondary_exec_control has not set SECONDARY_EXEC_XSAVES.
However I may be wrong because I didn't review the code very closely:
the old code is obvious and so there is no point in changing it.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists