On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 01:30:12PM -0700,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 09:57:18AM +0800,
> Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > +static int __init vt_init(void)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned int vcpu_size, vcpu_align;
> > > + int r;
> > > +
> > > + if (!kvm_is_vmx_supported())
> > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Note, hv_init_evmcs() touches only VMX knobs, i.e. there's nothing
> > > + * to unwind if a later step fails.
> > > + */
> > > + hv_init_evmcs();
> > > +
> > > + r = kvm_x86_vendor_init(&vt_init_ops);
> > > + if (r)
> > > + return r;
> > > +
> > > + r = vmx_init();
> > > + if (r)
> > > + goto err_vmx_init;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Common KVM initialization _must_ come last, after this, /dev/kvm is
> > > + * exposed to userspace!
> > > + */
> > > + vcpu_size = sizeof(struct vcpu_vmx);
> > > + vcpu_align = __alignof__(struct vcpu_vmx);
> > > + r = kvm_init(vcpu_size, vcpu_align, THIS_MODULE);
> > > + if (r)
> > > + goto err_kvm_init;
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > ---------------------------------
> > > +err_kvm_init:
> > > + vmx_exit();
> > > +err_vmx_init:
> > > + kvm_x86_vendor_exit();
> > > + return r;
> > > +}
> > > +module_init(vt_init);
> > > +
> > ----------------------------------
> > > +static void vt_exit(void)
> > > +{
> > > + kvm_exit();
> > > + kvm_x86_vendor_exit();
> > > + vmx_exit();
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> > It seems the exiting sequences above are a little bit different with
> > each other (PS: It is not a prob introduced in this patch):
> >
> > vmx_exit()
> > kvm_x86_vendor_exit()
> > ....
> >
> > and
> >
> > ...
> > kvm_x86_vnedor_exit()
> > vmx_exit()
> >
> > I was wondering which one should be correct. Literally, the exiting
> > sequence would be in reversing order of the initialization sequence.
>
> In theory, I think kvm_x86_vendor_exit() => vmx_exit() and
> vmx_init() => kvm_x86_vendor_exit() should be the right order.
> But in practice, it doesn't matter and I didn't want to touch the order with
> this patch series.
Here is the patch for it. But I'd like to hold the patch after this patch
series.
>From 02c425cb96c252eecbeaf8e57dd6afd7576931b1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id: <02c425cb96c252eecbeaf8e57dd6afd7576931b1.1685566207.git.isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 13:36:10 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Reorder vmx initialization with kvm vendor
initialization
To match vmx_exit cleanup.
Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c
index 2e4667307458..a0586da86d81 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/main.c
@@ -1251,11 +1251,11 @@ static int __init vt_init(void)
__alignof__(struct vcpu_tdx));
}
- r = kvm_x86_vendor_init(&vt_init_ops);
+ r = vmx_init();
if (r)
- return r;
+ goto err_vmx_init;
- r = vmx_init();
+ r = kvm_x86_vendor_init(&vt_init_ops);
if (r)
goto err_vmx_init;
@@ -1270,9 +1270,9 @@ static int __init vt_init(void)
return 0;
err_kvm_init:
- vmx_exit();
-err_vmx_init:
kvm_x86_vendor_exit();
+err_vmx_init:
+ vmx_exit();
return r;
}
module_init(vt_init);
--
2.25.1
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
