Am 03.11.22 um 00:18 schrieb Sean Christopherson:
Non-x86 folks, please test on hardware when possible. I made a _lot_ of mistakes when moving code around. Thankfully, x86 was the trickiest code to deal with, and I'm fairly confident that I found all the bugs I introduced via testing. But the number of mistakes I made and found on x86 makes me more than a bit worried that I screwed something up in other arch code. This is a continuation of Chao's series to do x86 CPU compatibility checks during virtualization hardware enabling[1], and of Isaku's series to try and clean up the hardware enabling paths so that x86 (Intel specifically) can temporarily enable hardware during module initialization without causing undue pain for other architectures[2]. It also includes one patch from another mini-series from Isaku that provides the less controversial patches[3]. The main theme of this series is to kill off kvm_arch_init(), kvm_arch_hardware_(un)setup(), and kvm_arch_check_processor_compat(), which all originated in x86 code from way back when, and needlessly complicate both common KVM code and architecture code. E.g. many architectures don't mark functions/data as __init/__ro_after_init purely because kvm_init() isn't marked __init to support x86's separate vendor modules. The idea/hope is that with those hooks gone (moved to arch code), it will be easier for x86 (and other architectures) to modify their module init sequences as needed without having to fight common KVM code. E.g. I'm hoping that ARM can build on this to simplify its hardware enabling logic, especially the pKVM side of things. There are bug fixes throughout this series. They are more scattered than I would usually prefer, but getting the sequencing correct was a gigantic pain for many of the x86 fixes due to needing to fix common code in order for the x86 fix to have any meaning. And while the bugs are often fatal, they aren't all that interesting for most users as they either require a malicious admin or broken hardware, i.e. aren't likely to be encountered by the vast majority of KVM users. So unless someone _really_ wants a particular fix isolated for backporting, I'm not planning on shuffling patches. Tested on x86. Lightly tested on arm64. Compile tested only on all other architectures.
Some sniff tests seem to work ok on s390. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
