On 07/18/2018 01:26 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
test_tpr_threshold() could theoretically leave CPU_TPR_SHADOW set in its early return path when none of the secondary controls needed for the remaining tests are supported. Fix the prefix for the TPR-enabled, sec_exec-disabled case. Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> --- x86/vmx_tests.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/x86/vmx_tests.c b/x86/vmx_tests.c index 6c73041..ab6e089 100644 --- a/x86/vmx_tests.c +++ b/x86/vmx_tests.c @@ -4085,13 +4085,15 @@ static void test_tpr_threshold(void) test_tpr_threshold_values(); report_prefix_pop(); vmcs_write(CPU_EXEC_CTRL0, vmcs_read(CPU_EXEC_CTRL0) | CPU_TPR_SHADOW); - report_prefix_pushf("Use TPR shadow enabled"); + report_prefix_pushf("Use TPR shadow enabled, secondary controls disabled"); test_tpr_threshold_values(); report_prefix_pop();if (!((ctrl_cpu_rev[0].clr & CPU_SECONDARY) &&- (ctrl_cpu_rev[1].clr & (CPU_VINTD | CPU_VIRT_APIC_ACCESSES)))) + (ctrl_cpu_rev[1].clr & (CPU_VINTD | CPU_VIRT_APIC_ACCESSES)))) { + vmcs_write(CPU_EXEC_CTRL0, primary); return; + }u32 secondary = vmcs_read(CPU_EXEC_CTRL1);
Reviewed-by: Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@xxxxxxxxxx>
