[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <41abb37b-c74a-f2cf-c0ce-74d5d6487e92@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 21:11:21 +0530
From: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@....com>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiaxi Chen <jiaxi.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, santosh.shukla@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] KVM: SVM: add wrappers to enable/disable IRET
interception
On 11/30/2022 1:07 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> SEV-ES guests don't use IRET interception for the detection of
> an end of a NMI.
>
> Therefore it makes sense to create a wrapper to avoid repeating
> the check for the SEV-ES.
>
> No functional change is intended.
>
> Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> index 512b2aa21137e2..cfed6ab29c839a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> @@ -2468,16 +2468,29 @@ static int task_switch_interception(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> has_error_code, error_code);
> }
>
> +static void svm_disable_iret_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> +{
> + if (!sev_es_guest(svm->vcpu.kvm))
> + svm_clr_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_IRET);
> +}
> +
> +static void svm_enable_iret_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> +{
> + if (!sev_es_guest(svm->vcpu.kvm))
> + svm_set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_IRET);
> +}
> +
nits:
s/_iret_interception / _iret_intercept
does that make sense?
Thanks,
Santosh
> static int iret_interception(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
>
> ++vcpu->stat.nmi_window_exits;
> svm->awaiting_iret_completion = true;
> - if (!sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm)) {
> - svm_clr_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_IRET);
> +
> + svm_disable_iret_interception(svm);
> + if (!sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm))
> svm->nmi_iret_rip = kvm_rip_read(vcpu);
> - }
> +
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
> return 1;
> }
> @@ -3470,8 +3483,7 @@ static void svm_inject_nmi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> return;
>
> svm->nmi_masked = true;
> - if (!sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm))
> - svm_set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_IRET);
> + svm_enable_iret_interception(svm);
> ++vcpu->stat.nmi_injections;
> }
>
> @@ -3614,12 +3626,10 @@ static void svm_set_nmi_mask(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool masked)
>
> if (masked) {
> svm->nmi_masked = true;
> - if (!sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm))
> - svm_set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_IRET);
> + svm_enable_iret_interception(svm);
> } else {
> svm->nmi_masked = false;
> - if (!sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm))
> - svm_clr_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_IRET);
> + svm_disable_iret_interception(svm);
> }
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists