lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: set rflags to specify success in handle_invvpid() default case
Date
linmiaohe <linmiaohe@huawei.com> writes:

> From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
>
> In handle_invvpid() default case, we just skip emulated instruction and
> forget to set rflags to specify success. This would result in indefinite
> rflags value and thus indeterminate return value for guest.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
> ---
> Chinese New Year is coming. Happy Spring Festival! ^_^

Happy Spring Festival!

> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> index 7608924ee8c1..985d3307ec56 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> @@ -5165,7 +5165,7 @@ static int handle_invvpid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> break;
> default:
> WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> - return kvm_skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
> + break;
> }
>
> return nested_vmx_succeed(vcpu);

Your patch seems to do the right thing, however, I started wondering if
WARN_ON_ONCE() is the right thing to do. SDM says that "If an
unsupported INVVPID type is specified, the instruction fails." and this
is similar to INVEPT and I decided to check what handle_invept()
does. Well, it does BUG_ON().

Are we doing the right thing in any of these cases?

--
Vitaly

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-23 09:56    [W:0.062 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site