[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7efef706-3332-4894-350b-ed05c489fe20@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 18:25:29 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: x86: pending exception must be be injected even
with an injected event
On 25/02/21 17:06, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-02-25 at 17:05 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 25/02/21 16:41, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>>> Injected events should not block a pending exception, but rather,
>>> should either be lost or be delivered to the nested hypervisor as part of
>>> exitintinfo/IDT_VECTORING_INFO
>>> (if nested hypervisor intercepts the pending exception)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
>>
>> Does this already fix some of your new test cases?
>
> Yes, this fixes the 'interrupted' interrupt delivery test,
> while patch fixes th 'interrupted' exception delivery.
> Both interrupted by an exception.
Could you post the tests, marking them as XFAIL if possible?
Thanks,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists