On Thu, Sep 09, 2021, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 09:12:10PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > case GHCB_MSR_TERM_REQ: {
> > > u64 reason_set, reason_code;
> > >
> > > - reason_set = get_ghcb_msr_bits(svm,
> > > - GHCB_MSR_TERM_REASON_SET_MASK,
> > > - GHCB_MSR_TERM_REASON_SET_POS);
> > > - reason_code = get_ghcb_msr_bits(svm,
> > > - GHCB_MSR_TERM_REASON_MASK,
> > > - GHCB_MSR_TERM_REASON_POS);
> > > + reason_set = GHCB_MSR_TERM_REASON_SET(control->ghcb_gpa);
> > > + reason_code = GHCB_MSR_TERM_REASON(control->ghcb_gpa);
> > > +
> > > pr_info("SEV-ES guest requested termination: %#llx:%#llx\n",
> > > reason_set, reason_code);
> > > +
> > > fallthrough;
> >
> > Not related to this patch, but why use fallthrough and more importantly, why is
> > this an -EINVAL return? Why wouldn't KVM forward the request to userspace instead
> > of returning an opaque -EINVAL?
>
> I guess it is to signal an error condition up the call-chain to get the
> guest terminated, like requested.
Yes, but it's odd bizarre/unfortunate that KVM doesn't take this opportunity to
forward the termination info to the VMM. The above pr_info() should not exist.
If that information is relevant then it should be handed to the VMM directly, not
dumped to dmesg.
