[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YmqjxNQiMABl+tX7@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:25:08 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
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, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] KVM: SVM: Re-inject INT3/INTO instead of
retrying the instruction
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> On 28.04.2022 11:37, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Sat, 2022-04-23 at 02:14 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > @@ -1618,7 +1644,7 @@ static int svm_set_nested_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > nested_copy_vmcb_control_to_cache(svm, ctl);
> > > svm_switch_vmcb(svm, &svm->nested.vmcb02);
> > > - nested_vmcb02_prepare_control(svm, save->rip);
> > > + nested_vmcb02_prepare_control(svm, svm->vmcb->save.rip);
> >
> > Is this change intentional?
>
> It looks to me the final code is correct since "svm->vmcb->save"
> contains L2 register save, while "save" has L1 register save.
>
> It was the patch 1 from this series that was incorrect in
> using "save->rip" here instead.
Yeah, I botched the fixup.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists