On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 12:42:31AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022, Yuan Yao wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 09:04:46PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > @@ -2614,6 +2635,20 @@ static __init int setup_vmcs_config(struct vmcs_config *vmcs_conf,
> > > &_vmentry_control) < 0)
> > > return -EIO;
> > >
> > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vmcs_entry_exit_pairs); i++) {
> > > + u32 n_ctrl = vmcs_entry_exit_pairs[i].entry_control;
> > > + u32 x_ctrl = vmcs_entry_exit_pairs[i].exit_control;
> > > +
> > > + if (!(_vmentry_control & n_ctrl) == !(_vmexit_control & x_ctrl))
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + pr_warn_once("Inconsistent VM-Entry/VM-Exit pair, entry = %x, exit = %x\n",
> > > + _vmentry_control & n_ctrl, _vmexit_control & x_ctrl);
> >
> > How about "n_ctrl, x_ctrl);" ? In 0/1 or 1/0 case this
> > outputs all information of real inconsistent bits but not 0.
>
> I thought about adding the stringified control name to the output (yay macros),
> but opted for the simplest approach because this should be a very, very rare
> event. All the necessary info is there, it just takes a bit of leg work to get
> from a single control bit to the related control name and finally to its pair.
>
> I'm not totally against printing more info, but if we're going to bother doing so,
> my vote is to print names instead of numbers.
Agree for simplest approach because this should be rare event, thanks.
