On 24.08.2022 14:13, Shukla, Santosh wrote:
Hi Maciej,
On 8/11/2022 2:54 AM, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
On 10.08.2022 08:12, Santosh Shukla wrote:
Inject the NMI by setting V_NMI in the VMCB interrupt control. processor
will clear V_NMI to acknowledge processing has started and will keep the
V_NMI_MASK set until the processor is done with processing the NMI event.
Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@xxxxxxx>
---
v3:
- Removed WARN_ON check.
v2:
- Added WARN_ON check for vnmi pending.
- use `get_vnmi_vmcb` to get correct vmcb so to inject vnmi.
arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
index e260e8cb0c81..8c4098b8a63e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
@@ -3479,7 +3479,14 @@ static void pre_svm_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
static void svm_inject_nmi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
+ struct vmcb *vmcb = NULL;
+ if (is_vnmi_enabled(svm)) {
I guess this should be "is_vnmi_enabled(svm) && !svm->nmi_l1_to_l2"
since if nmi_l1_to_l2 is true then the NMI to be injected originally
comes from L1's VMCB12 EVENTINJ field.
Not sure if I understood the case fully.. so trying to sketch scenario here -
if nmi_l1_to_l2 is true then event is coming from EVTINJ. .which could
be one of following case -
1) L0 (vnmi enabled) and L1 (vnmi disabled)
As far as I can see in this case:
is_vnmi_enabled() returns whether VMCB02's int_ctl has V_NMI_ENABLE bit set.
This field in VMCB02 comes from nested_vmcb02_prepare_control() which
in the !nested_vnmi_enabled() case (L1 is not using vNMI) copies these bits
from VMCB01:
int_ctl_vmcb01_bits |= (V_NMI_PENDING | V_NMI_ENABLE | V_NMI_MASK);
So in this case (L0 uses vNMI) V_NMI_ENABLE will be set in VMCB01, right?
This bit will then be copied to VMCB02 so re-injection will attempt to use
vNMI instead of EVTINJ.
2) L0 & L1 both vnmi disabled.
This case is ok.
In both cases the vnmi check will fail for L1 and execution path
will fall back to default - right?
Thanks,
Santosh
Thanks,
Maciej
