[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zmewac7teXzOs5i2@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:03:21 +0800
From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xiangfei Ma <xiangfeix.ma@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nVMX: Ensure host's PAT is loaded at the end of all
VMX tests
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 06:47:55PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:45:26PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > @@ -7274,6 +7275,8 @@ static void test_pat(u32 field, const char * field_name, u32 ctrl_field,
> > > error = 0;
> > >
> > > test_vmx_vmlaunch(error);
> > > + wrmsr(MSR_IA32_CR_PAT, pat_msr_saved);
> > > +
> > > report_prefix_pop();
> > >
> > > } else { // GUEST_PAT
> >
> > Is it possible that ENT_LOAD_PAT of GUEST_PAT is tested when there's no support of
> > EXI_LOAD_PAT of HOST_PAT?
> > Then
> > wrmsr(MSR_IA32_CR_PAT, pat_msr_saved);
> > is also required in this case?
>
> Heh, in theory, yeah, a nested setup could create such a monstrosity. It's easy
> enough to handle, so I guess why not? Though I'm tempted to assert instead,
> because practically speaking this code will never be hit, and thus never validated.
>
> diff --git a/x86/vmx_tests.c b/x86/vmx_tests.c
> index 2063ee90..ffe7064c 100644
> --- a/x86/vmx_tests.c
> +++ b/x86/vmx_tests.c
> @@ -7288,6 +7288,9 @@ static void test_pat(u32 field, const char * field_name, u32 ctrl_field,
> error = (i == 0x2 || i == 0x3 || i >= 0x8);
> test_guest_state("ENT_LOAD_PAT enabled", !!error,
> val, "GUEST_PAT");
> +
> + if (!(ctrl_exit_rev.clr & EXI_LOAD_PAT))
> + wrmsr(MSR_IA32_CR_PAT, pat_msr_saved);
> }
>
> }
Tested passed with EXI_LOAD_PAT intentionally cleared in ctrl_exit_rev.clr.
Reviewed-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists