On 09/07/20 16:53, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> WARN_ON_ONCE(svm->nested.nested_run_pending) in nested_svm_vmexit()
> will fire if nested_run_pending remains '1' but it doesn't really
> need to, we are already failing and not going to run nested guest.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> index e424bce13e6c..1cc8592b1820 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> @@ -468,6 +468,8 @@ int nested_svm_vmrun(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> enter_svm_guest_mode(svm, vmcb_gpa, nested_vmcb);
>
> if (!nested_svm_vmrun_msrpm(svm)) {
> + svm->nested.nested_run_pending = 0;
> +
> svm->vmcb->control.exit_code = SVM_EXIT_ERR;
> svm->vmcb->control.exit_code_hi = 0;
> svm->vmcb->control.exit_info_1 = 0;
>
I wouldn't complain if you added a kvm-unit-tests testcase for this...
Paolo
