[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALMp9eRyabQA8v5cJ1AwmtFdNFvWQz2jQ+iGTRQjow7r4FV3xA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:54:39 -0700
From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: x86: announce KVM_CAP_HYPERV_ENLIGHTENED_VMCS
support only when it is available
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 9:04 AM Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> It was discovered that after commit 65efa61dc0d5 ("selftests: kvm: provide
> common function to enable eVMCS") hyperv_cpuid selftest is failing on AMD.
> The reason is that the commit changed _vcpu_ioctl() to vcpu_ioctl() in the
> test and this one can't fail.
>
> Instead of fixing the test is seems to make more sense to not announce
> KVM_CAP_HYPERV_ENLIGHTENED_VMCS support if it is definitely missing
> (on svm and in case kvm_intel.nested=0).
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index d1cd0fcff9e7..ef2e8b138300 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -3106,7 +3106,6 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
> case KVM_CAP_HYPERV_EVENTFD:
> case KVM_CAP_HYPERV_TLBFLUSH:
> case KVM_CAP_HYPERV_SEND_IPI:
> - case KVM_CAP_HYPERV_ENLIGHTENED_VMCS:
> case KVM_CAP_HYPERV_CPUID:
> case KVM_CAP_PCI_SEGMENT:
> case KVM_CAP_DEBUGREGS:
> @@ -3183,6 +3182,8 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
> r = kvm_x86_ops->get_nested_state ?
> kvm_x86_ops->get_nested_state(NULL, NULL, 0) : 0;
> break;
> + case KVM_CAP_HYPERV_ENLIGHTENED_VMCS:
> + r = kvm_x86_ops->nested_enable_evmcs != NULL;
You should probably have an explicit break here, in case someone later
adds another case below.
> default:
> break;
> }
> --
> 2.20.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists