2018-06-22 21:09+0200, Borislav Petkov:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 08:52:38PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > msr_info->host_initiated is always going to return true, so it would be
> > better to put it outside of __set_mci_status.
> >
> > Maybe we could just write the whole logic inline, otherwise I'd call it
> > something like mci_status_is_writeable.
> >
> > > static int set_msr_mce(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> > > {
> > > u64 mcg_cap = vcpu->arch.mcg_cap;
> > > @@ -2176,9 +2200,13 @@ static int set_msr_mce(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> > > if ((offset & 0x3) == 0 &&
> > > data != 0 && (data | (1 << 10)) != ~(u64)0)
> > > return -1;
> > > - if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
> > > - (offset & 0x3) == 1 && data != 0)
> > > - return -1;
> > > +
> > > + /* MCi_STATUS */
> > > + if ((offset & 0x3) == 1) {
> > > + if (!__set_mci_status(vcpu, msr_info))
> > > + return -1;
> > > + }
> >
> > if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
> > (offset & 0x3) == 1 && data != 0) {
> > struct msr_data tmp = {.index = MSR_K7_HWCR};
> >
> > if (!guest_cpuid_is_amd(vcpu) ||
> > !kvm_x86_ops->get_msr(vcpu, &tmp) ||
> > !(tmp.data & BIT_ULL(18)))
> > return -1;
>
> Don't you feel it is cleaner if all the MCi_STATUS checking is done in
> a separate function? The indentation level and the bunch of checks in
> set_msr_mce() make it hard to read while having a separate function
> separates it and makes it easier to follow.
Yes, I feel the same.
> I mean, you're the maintainer but if I may give a suggestion, moving the
> whole logic into a separate function would be more readable.
>
> And then do:
>
> if (!msr_info->host_initiated) {
> if (check_mci_status(...))
> return -1;
> }
>
> Something like that...
Much better, thanks.
