[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3c467967-a499-af4e-29df-ddfeb196714f@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 08:58:55 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Derek Yerger <derek@....llc>,
kernel@...dan.com, Thomas Lambertz <mail@...maslambertz.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: x86: Revert "KVM: X86: Fix fpu state crash in
kvm guest"
On 04/03/20 08:41, Liu, Jing2 wrote:
>> trace_kvm_entry(vcpu->vcpu_id);
>> guest_enter_irqoff();
>> - /* The preempt notifier should have taken care of the FPU
>> already. */
>> - WARN_ON_ONCE(test_thread_flag(TIF_NEED_FPU_LOAD));
>> + fpregs_assert_state_consistent();
>> + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_NEED_FPU_LOAD))
>> + switch_fpu_return();
>> if (unlikely(vcpu->arch.switch_db_regs)) {
>> set_debugreg(0, 7);
>
> Can kvm be preempt out again after this (before really enter to guest)?
No, irqs are disabled here.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists