On 8/24/2022 6:26 PM, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> 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.
>
For L1 with vnmi disabled case - is_vnmi_enabled()->get_vnmi_vmcb() will return false so the
execution path will opt EVTINJ model for re-injection.
Thanks,
Santosh
> 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
