Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
...
>>
>> - if (all_cpus) {
>> - kvm_send_ipi_to_many(kvm, vector, NULL);
>> - } else {
>> - sparse_set_to_vcpu_mask(kvm, sparse_banks, valid_bank_mask, vcpu_mask);
>> -
>> - kvm_send_ipi_to_many(kvm, vector, vcpu_mask);
>> - }
>> + kvm_hv_send_ipi_to_many(kvm, vector, all_cpus ? NULL : sparse_banks, valid_bank_mask);
>
> Any objection to not using a ternary operator?
>
> if (all_cpus)
> kvm_hv_send_ipi_to_many(kvm, vector, NULL, 0);
> else
> kvm_hv_send_ipi_to_many(kvm, vector, sparse_banks, valid_bank_mask);
>
Not at all,
> Mostly because it's somewhat arbitrary that earlier code ensures valid_bank_mask
> is set in the all_cpus=true case, e.g. arguably KVM doesn't need to do the var_cnt
> sanity check in the all_cpus case:
>
> all_cpus = send_ipi_ex.vp_set.format == HV_GENERIC_SET_ALL;
> if (all_cpus)
> goto check_and_send_ipi;
>
> valid_bank_mask = send_ipi_ex.vp_set.valid_bank_mask;
> if (hc->var_cnt != hweight64(valid_bank_mask))
> return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
>
> if (!hc->var_cnt)
> goto ret_success;
>
I think 'var_cnt' (== hweight64(valid_bank_mask)) has to be checked in
'all_cpus' case, especially in kvm_hv_flush_tlb(): the code which reads
TLB flush entries will read them from the wrong offset (data_offset/
consumed_xmm_halves) otherwise. The problem is less severe in
kvm_hv_send_ipi() as there's no data after CPU banks.
At the bare minimum, "KVM: x86: hyper-v: Handle
HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_LIST{,EX} calls gently" patch from this
series will have to be adjusted. I *think* mandating var_cnt==0 in 'all_cpus'
is OK but I don't recall such requirement from TLFS, maybe it's safer to
just adjust 'data_offset'/'consumed_xmm_halves' even in 'all_cpus' case.
Let me do some tests...
--
Vitaly
