linmiaohe <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> > > In handle_invvpid() default case, we just skip emulated instruction and > forget to set rflags to specify success. This would result in indefinite > rflags value and thus indeterminate return value for guest. > > Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Chinese New Year is coming. Happy Spring Festival! ^_^ Happy Spring Festival! > --- > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c > index 7608924ee8c1..985d3307ec56 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c > @@ -5165,7 +5165,7 @@ static int handle_invvpid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > break; > default: > WARN_ON_ONCE(1); > - return kvm_skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu); > + break; > } > > return nested_vmx_succeed(vcpu); Your patch seems to do the right thing, however, I started wondering if WARN_ON_ONCE() is the right thing to do. SDM says that "If an unsupported INVVPID type is specified, the instruction fails." and this is similar to INVEPT and I decided to check what handle_invept() does. Well, it does BUG_ON(). Are we doing the right thing in any of these cases? -- Vitaly
