On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 03:53:45PM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 12:04:32PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > Hi Emanuele,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 08:29:03AM -0500, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> > > Expose IA32_FLUSH_CMD to the guest if the guest CPUID enumerates
> > > support for this MSR. As with IA32_PRED_CMD, permission for
> > > unintercepted writes to this MSR will be granted to the guest after
> > > the first non-zero write.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 3 ++
> > > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > > 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> > > index 557b9c468734..075b5ade7c80 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> > > @@ -654,6 +654,9 @@ static inline bool nested_vmx_prepare_msr_bitmap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > nested_vmx_set_intercept_for_msr(vmx, msr_bitmap_l1, msr_bitmap_l0,
> > > MSR_IA32_PRED_CMD, MSR_TYPE_W);
> > >
> > > + nested_vmx_set_intercept_for_msr(vmx, msr_bitmap_l1, msr_bitmap_l0,
> > > + MSR_IA32_FLUSH_CMD, MSR_TYPE_W);
> > > +
> > > kvm_vcpu_unmap(vcpu, &vmx->nested.msr_bitmap_map, false);
> > >
> > > vmx->nested.force_msr_bitmap_recalc = false;
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > index c788aa382611..9a78ea96a6d7 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > @@ -2133,6 +2133,39 @@ static u64 vmx_get_supported_debugctl(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool host_initiated
> > > return debugctl;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static int vmx_set_msr_ia32_cmd(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > + struct msr_data *msr_info,
> > > + bool guest_has_feat, u64 cmd,
> > > + int x86_feature_bit)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!msr_info->host_initiated && !guest_has_feat)
> > > + return 1;
> > > +
> > > + if (!(msr_info->data & ~cmd))
>
> Looks like this is doing a reverse check. Shouldn't this be as below:
That diff on top of next-20230317 appears to resolve the issue for me
and my L1 guest can spawn an L2 guest without any issues (which is the
extent of my KVM testing).
Is this a problem for the SVM version? It has the same check it seems,
although I did not have any issues on my AMD test platform (but I guess
that means that the system has the support?).
I assume this will just be squashed into the original change but if not:
Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cheers,
Nathan
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index f88578407494..e8d9033559c4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -2141,7 +2141,7 @@ static int vmx_set_msr_ia32_cmd(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> if (!msr_info->host_initiated && !guest_has_feat)
> return 1;
>
> - if (!(msr_info->data & ~cmd))
> + if (msr_info->data & ~cmd)
> return 1;
> if (!boot_cpu_has(x86_feature_bit))
> return 1;
