Re: [PATCHv3 5/8] KVM: SVM: Add VNMI support in inject_nmi

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 25.08.2022 16:05, Shukla, Santosh wrote:
On 8/25/2022 6:15 PM, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
On 25.08.2022 12:56, Shukla, Santosh wrote:
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.

I guess by "get_vnmi_vmcb() will return false" you mean it will return NULL,
since this function returns a pointer, not a bool.


Yes, I meant is_vnmi_enabled() will return false if vnmi param is unset.

I can't see however, how this will happen:
static inline struct vmcb *get_vnmi_vmcb(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
{
     if (!vnmi)
         return NULL;
         ^ "vnmi" variable controls whether L0 uses vNMI,
        so this variable is true in our case


No.

In L1 case (vnmi disabled) - vnmi param will be false.

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding here - the case here
isn't the code under discussion running as L1, but as L0
where L1 not using vNMI - L1 here can be an old version of KVM,
or Hyper-V, or any other hypervisor.

In this case L0 is re-injecting an EVENTINJ NMI into L2 on
the behalf of L1.
That's when "nmi_l1_to_l2" is true.

Since the code is physically running on L0 (which makes use of vNMI)
it has the "vnmi" param set.

So is_vnmi_enabled() will return true and vNMI will be used
for the re-injection instead of the required EVENTINJ.

In L0 case (vnmi enabled) - vnmi param will be true.

So in L1 case, is_vnmi_enabled() will return false and
in L0 case will return true.

Thanks,
Santosh

Thanks,
Maciej



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux