On Wed, Apr 06, 2022, Oliver Upton wrote: > Hey Sean, > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 5:26 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 3/4/22 00:44, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.h b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.h > > > > index c92cea0b8ccc..46dd1967ec08 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.h > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.h > > > > @@ -285,8 +285,8 @@ static inline bool nested_cr4_valid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long val) > > > > } > > > > > > > > /* No difference in the restrictions on guest and host CR4 in VMX operation. */ > > > > -#define nested_guest_cr4_valid nested_cr4_valid > > > > -#define nested_host_cr4_valid nested_cr4_valid > > > > +#define nested_guest_cr4_valid kvm_is_valid_cr4 > > > > +#define nested_host_cr4_valid kvm_is_valid_cr4 > > > > > > This doesn't allow the theoretically possible case of L0 setting some > > > CR4-fixed-0 bits for L1. I'll send another one. > > > > Are you still planning on sending a proper patch for this? > > > > And more importantly, have we shifted your view on this patch/series? > > Sorry, I should've followed up. If nobody else complains, let's just > leave everything as-is and avoid repeating the mistakes of the patches > to blame (hey, I authored one of those!) The problem is that if we leave things as is, someone will inevitably think it's the right thing to do and will repeat those mistakes. I don't see why we wouldn't add the quirk, broken userspace gets to keep its broken behavior unless it opts into to disabling the quirk.
