On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:54 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 1:23 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > > > - if (type > 3) {
> > > > + if (type > INVPCID_TYPE_MAX) {
> > >
> > > Hrm, I don't love this because it's not auto-updating in the unlikely chance that
> > > a new type is added. I definitely don't like open coding '3' either. What about
> > > going with a verbose option of
> > >
> > > if (type != INVPCID_TYPE_INDIV_ADDR &&
> > > type != INVPCID_TYPE_SINGLE_CTXT &&
> > > type != INVPCID_TYPE_ALL_INCL_GLOBAL &&
> > > type != INVPCID_TYPE_ALL_NON_GLOBAL) {
> > > kvm_inject_gp(vcpu, 0);
> > > return 1;
> > > }
> >
> > Better, perhaps, to introduce a new function, valid_invpcid_type(),
> > and squirrel away the ugliness there?
>
> Oh, yeah, definitely. I missed that SVM's invpcid_interception() has the same
> open-coded check.
>
> Alternatively, could we handle the invalid type in the main switch statement? I
> don't see anything in the SDM or APM that architecturally _requires_ the type be
> checked before reading the INVPCID descriptor. Hardware may operate that way,
> but that's uArch specific behavior unless there's explicit documentation.
Right. INVVPID and INVEPT are explicitly documented to check the type
first, but INVPCID is not.
