On Mon, Apr 04, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Sat, 2022-04-02 at 01:09 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Trace exceptions that are re-injected, not just those that KVM is
> > injecting for the first time. Debugging re-injection bugs is painful
> > enough as is, not having visibility into what KVM is doing only makes
> > things worse.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 8 ++++----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index 7a066cf92692..384091600bc2 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -9382,6 +9382,10 @@ int kvm_check_nested_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >
> > static void kvm_inject_exception(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > + trace_kvm_inj_exception(vcpu->arch.exception.nr,
> > + vcpu->arch.exception.has_error_code,
> > + vcpu->arch.exception.error_code);
> > +
>
> Can we use a {new tracepoint / new parameter for this tracepoint} for this to
> avoid confusion?
Good idea, a param to capture re-injection would be very helpful.
