On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, Kechen Lu wrote:
> @@ -5980,6 +5987,8 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_irq_line(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_irq_level *irq_event,
> int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm,
> struct kvm_enable_cap *cap)
> {
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> + unsigned long i;
> int r;
>
> if (cap->flags)
> @@ -6036,14 +6045,17 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm,
> break;
>
> mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> - if (kvm->created_vcpus)
> - goto disable_exits_unlock;
> + if (kvm->created_vcpus) {
I retract my comment about using a request, I got ahead of myself.
Don't update vCPUs, the whole point of adding the !kvm->created_vcpus check was
to avoid having to update vCPUs when the per-VM behavior changed.
In other words, keep the restriction and drop the request.
> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> + kvm_ioctl_disable_exits(vcpu->arch, cap->args[0]);
> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_DISABLE_EXITS, vcpu);
> + }
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>
> kvm_ioctl_disable_exits(kvm->arch, cap->args[0]);
>
> r = 0;
> -disable_exits_unlock:
> - mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> break;
> case KVM_CAP_MSR_PLATFORM_INFO:
> kvm->arch.guest_can_read_msr_platform_info = cap->args[0];
> @@ -10175,6 +10187,9 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UPDATE_CPU_DIRTY_LOGGING, vcpu))
> static_call(kvm_x86_update_cpu_dirty_logging)(vcpu);
> +
> + if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_DISABLE_EXITS, vcpu))
> + static_call(kvm_x86_update_disabled_exits)(vcpu);
> }
>
> if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu) || req_int_win ||
> --
> 2.32.0
>
