On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 03:45:26PM -0700, Jim Mattson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:57 AM Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:40 PM Sean Christopherson > > <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I agree the code is a mess (kvm_init() and kvm_exit() included), but I'm > > > pretty sure hardware_disable_nolock() is guaranteed to be a nop as it's > > > impossible for kvm_usage_count to be non-zero if vmx_init() hasn't > > > finished. > > > > Unless I'm missing something, there's no check for a non-zero > > kvm_usage_count on this path. There is such a check in > > hardware_disable_all_nolock(), but not in hardware_disable_nolock(). > > However, cpus_hardware_enabled shouldn't have any bits set, so > everything's fine. Nothing to see here, after all. Ugh, I forgot that hardware_disable_all_nolock() does a BUG_ON() instead of bailing on !kvm_usage_count.
