> On 11 Sep 2018, at 16:16, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 30/08/2018 11:57, Liran Alon wrote: >> Consider the case L1 had a IRQ/NMI event until it executed >> VMLAUNCH/VMRESUME which wasn't delivered because it was disallowed >> (e.g. interrupts disabled). When L1 executes VMLAUNCH/VMRESUME, >> L0 needs to evaluate if this pending event should cause an exit from >> L2 to L1 or delivered directly to L2 (e.g. In case L1 don't intercept >> EXTERNAL_INTERRUPT). >> >> Usually this would be handled by L0 requesting a IRQ/NMI window >> by setting VMCS accordingly. However, this setting was done on >> VMCS01 and now VMCS02 is active instead. Thus, when L1 executes >> VMLAUNCH/VMRESUME we force L0 to perform pending event evaluation by >> requesting a KVM_REQ_EVENT. >> >> Note that above scenario exists when L1 KVM is about to enter L2 but >> requests an "immediate-exit". As in this case, L1 will >> disable-interrupts and then send a self-IPI before entering L2. >> >> Co-authored-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Liran Alon <liran.alon@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Any chance you can write a testcase for selftests/kvm? The framework > should be more or less stable by now. > > Paolo Actually, I have already written one and submitted it a week ago to the mailing list. You can find the relevant unit-tests here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/kvm/list/?series=14789 (There are also other patches I submitted to KVM nVMX which are pending to be reviewed and queued) Regards, -Liran
