> On May 9, 2019, at 1:32 PM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 03:27:15AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Intel SDM 26.6.5 says regarding interrupt-window exiting that: "These
>> events wake the logical processor if it just entered the HLT state
>> because of a VM entry." A similar statement is told about NMI-window
>> exiting.
>>
>> However, running tests which are similar to verify_nmi_window_exit() and
>> verify_intr_window_exit() on bare-metal suggests that real CPUs do not
>> wake up. Until someone figures what the correct behavior is, just reset
>> the activity state to "active" after each test to prevent the whole
>> test-suite from getting stuck.
>>
>> Cc: Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> x86/vmx_tests.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/x86/vmx_tests.c b/x86/vmx_tests.c
>> index f921286..2d6b12d 100644
>> --- a/x86/vmx_tests.c
>> +++ b/x86/vmx_tests.c
>> @@ -7063,6 +7063,7 @@ static void verify_nmi_window_exit(u64 rip)
>> report("Activity state (%ld) is 'ACTIVE'",
>> vmcs_read(GUEST_ACTV_STATE) == ACTV_ACTIVE,
>> vmcs_read(GUEST_ACTV_STATE));
>> + vmcs_write(GUEST_ACTV_STATE, ACTV_ACTIVE);
>
> Don't you need to remove (or modify) the above report() as well to avoid
> failing the current test?
Thanks for checking it (in your second email).
So should I remove this test completely for v2? Or do you have any different
test you want to run?
