[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wnk8v43z.fsf@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 17:53:04 +0100
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Hou Wenlong <houwenlong93@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Inject #UD on "unsupported" hypercall if
patching fails
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> writes:
> Ideally, KVM wouldn't patch at all; it's the guest's responsibility to
> identify and use the correct hypercall instruction (VMCALL vs. VMMCALL).
> Sadly, older Linux kernels prior to commit c1118b3602c2 ("x86: kvm: use
> alternatives for VMCALL vs. VMMCALL if kernel text is read-only") do the
> wrong thing and blindly use VMCALL, i.e. removing the patching would
> break running VMs with older kernels.
>
FWIW, we also use hypercall patching for Hyper-V emulation (when
HV_X64_MSR_HYPERCALL is written) and this complies with TLFS, we can't
get rid of this. It's a different 'patching' though...
--
Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists