On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 02:58:30PM +0800, Zhang, Xiong Y wrote:
> On 5/7/2024 5:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 05:29:37AM +0000, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
> >> From: Xiong Zhang <xiong.y.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> +void x86_perf_guest_enter(u32 guest_lvtpc)
> >> +{
> >> + lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> >> +
> >> + apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_FIXED | KVM_GUEST_PMI_VECTOR |
> >> + (guest_lvtpc & APIC_LVT_MASKED));
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(x86_perf_guest_enter);
> >> +
> >> +void x86_perf_guest_exit(void)
> >> +{
> >> + lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> >> +
> >> + apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(x86_perf_guest_exit);
> >
> > Urgghh... because it makes sense for this bare APIC write to be exported
> > ?!?
> Usually KVM doesn't access HW except vmx directly and requests other
> components to access HW to avoid confliction, APIC_LVTPC is managed by x86
> perf driver, so I added two functions here and exported them.
Yes, I understand how you got here. But as with everything you export,
you should ask yourself, should I export this. The above
x86_perf_guest_enter() function allows any module to write random LVTPC
entries. That's not a good thing to export.
I utterly detest how KVM is a module and ends up exporting a ton of
stuff that *really* should not be exported.
