On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 4:05 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > If they are needed, it's fine. In my opinion a new callback is easier
> > to handle and understand than new state.
>
> Yeah, we ripped out post_leave_smm() because its sole usage at the time was buggy,
> and having a callback without a purpose would just be dead code.
[...]
> : But due to nested_run_pending being (unnecessarily) buried in vendor structs, it
> : might actually be easier to do a cleaner fix. E.g. add yet another flag to track
> : that a hardware VM-Enter needs to be completed in order to complete instruction
> : emulation.
>
> I didn't mean add a flag to the emulator to muck with nested_run_pending, I meant
> add a flag to kvm_vcpu_arch to be a superset of nested_run_pending. E.g. as a
> first step, something like the below. And then as follow up, see if it's doable
> to propagate nested_run_pending => insn_emulation_needs_vmenter so that the
> nested_run_pending checks in {svm,vmx}_{interrupt,nmi,smi}_allowed() can be
> dropped.
That seems a lot more complicated... What do you think of the patches
I posted (the one that works and the wish-it-could-be-like-that one
that folds triple faults into check_nested_events).
Paolo
