Re: [PATCH RFC] KVM: nSVM: remove useless kvm_clear_*_queue
From: Maxim Levitsky <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-02 13:10:37
Also in:
lkml
On Mon, 2021-08-02 at 08:56 -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
For an event to be in injected state when nested_svm_vmrun executes, it must have come from exitintinfo when svm_complete_interrupts ran: vcpu_enter_guest static_call(kvm_x86_run) -> svm_vcpu_run svm_complete_interrupts // now the event went from "exitintinfo" to "injected" static_call(kvm_x86_handle_exit) -> handle_exit svm_invoke_exit_handler vmrun_interception nested_svm_vmrun However, no event could have been in exitintinfo before a VMRUN vmexit. The code in svm.c is a bit more permissive than the one in vmx.c: if (is_external_interrupt(svm->vmcb->control.exit_int_info) && exit_code != SVM_EXIT_EXCP_BASE + PF_VECTOR && exit_code != SVM_EXIT_NPF && exit_code != SVM_EXIT_TASK_SWITCH && exit_code != SVM_EXIT_INTR && exit_code != SVM_EXIT_NMI) but in any case, a VMRUN instruction would not even start to execute during an attempted event delivery. Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> --- arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c | 5 ----- 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c index 61738ff8ef33..5e13357da21e 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c@@ -659,11 +659,6 @@ int nested_svm_vmrun(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) goto out; } - - /* Clear internal status */ - kvm_clear_exception_queue(vcpu); - kvm_clear_interrupt_queue(vcpu); - /* * Since vmcb01 is not in use, we can use it to store some of the L1 * state.
100% agree. As I say, Intel's architects weren't crazy enough to implement an VM IDT gate (switch to a VM on interrupt....), and so indeed that this isn't possible. They do have a task gate... thankfully it is legacy. I would still keep a WARN_ON_ONCE here just in case. Note that in theory one can force an injected/queued exception with KVM_SET_VCPU_EVENTS on RIP that points to VMRUN instruction. Its user fault though. Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <redacted> Best regards, Maxim Levitsky