Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:53:26PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Release and re-acquire preemption and IRQ lock in the same order as
>> vcpu_enter_guest does.
>
> This should happen in vcpu_enter_guest, before it decides to disable
> preemption/irqs (so you consolidate the control there).
Maybe, maybe not. handle_invalid_guest_state is an alternative way of
"executing" guest code, and it currently shares the setup and tear-down
with vmx_vcpu_run. If it has to share parts that actually require
preemption and IRQ lock, then moving makes not much sense. Can anyone
comment on what the requirements for handle_invalid_guest_state are?
I would suggest to merge this fix first and then decide about and
potentially merge a refactoring patch.
Jan
>
> Maybe add a new member to x86_ops?
>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> index d75c271..4f914c3 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> @@ -3324,8 +3324,8 @@ static void handle_invalid_guest_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
>> enum emulation_result err = EMULATE_DONE;
>>
>> - preempt_enable();
>> local_irq_enable();
>> + preempt_enable();
>>
>> while (!guest_state_valid(vcpu)) {
>> err = emulate_instruction(vcpu, kvm_run, 0, 0, 0);
>> @@ -3344,8 +3344,8 @@ static void handle_invalid_guest_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> schedule();
>> }
>>
>> - local_irq_disable();
>> preempt_disable();
>> + local_irq_disable();
>>
>> vmx->invalid_state_emulation_result = err;
>> }
>>
>
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
