On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 01:49:30PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Anirudh Rayabharam <anrayabh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 06:48:50PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Anirudh Rayabharam <anrayabh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 04:35:27PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I've tried to pick it up but it's actually much harder than I think. The
> >> >> patch has some minor issues ('&vmcs_config.nested' needs to be switched
> >> >> to '&vmcs_conf->nested' in nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs()), but the main
> >> >> problem is that the set of controls nested_vmx_setup_ctls_msrs() needs
> >> >> is NOT a subset of vmcs_config (setup_vmcs_config()). I was able to
> >> >> identify at least:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> I've jsut sent "[PATCH RFC v1 00/10] KVM: nVMX: Use vmcs_config for
> >> setting up nested VMX MSRs" which implements Sean's suggestion. Hope
> >> this is the way to go for mainline.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > How about we do something simple like the patch below to start with?
> >> > This will easily apply to stable and we can continue improving upon
> >> > it with follow up patches on mainline.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Personally, I'm not against this for @stable. Alternatively, in case the
> >
> > I think it's a good intermediate fix for mainline too. It is easier to land
> > it in stable if it already exists in mainline. It can stay in mainline
> > until your series lands and replaces it with the vmcs_config approach.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
>
> Paolo's call but personally I think both series can make 5.20 so there's
> no need for an intermediate solution.
Only reason I see for this intermediate solution is to automatically
land the fix in stable without bothering to write a special backport.
I will send it as a proper patch and see if there is any interest in
taking it.
- Anirudh.
