On 1/22/2025 12:13 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025, Dapeng Mi wrote:
>> On 1/18/2025 1:11 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> @@ -98,14 +149,12 @@ static uint8_t guest_get_pmu_version(void)
>>> * Sanity check that in all cases, the event doesn't count when it's disabled,
>>> * and that KVM correctly emulates the write of an arbitrary value.
>>> */
>>> -static void guest_assert_event_count(uint8_t idx,
>>> - struct kvm_x86_pmu_feature event,
>>> - uint32_t pmc, uint32_t pmc_msr)
>>> +static void guest_assert_event_count(uint8_t idx, uint32_t pmc, uint32_t pmc_msr)
>>> {
>>> uint64_t count;
>>>
>>> count = _rdpmc(pmc);
>>> - if (!this_pmu_has(event))
>>> + if (!(hardware_pmu_arch_events & BIT(idx)))
>>> goto sanity_checks;
>>>
>>> switch (idx) {
>>> @@ -126,7 +175,9 @@ static void guest_assert_event_count(uint8_t idx,
>>> GUEST_ASSERT_NE(count, 0);
>>> break;
>>> case INTEL_ARCH_TOPDOWN_SLOTS_INDEX:
>>> - GUEST_ASSERT(count >= NUM_INSNS_RETIRED);
>>> + __GUEST_ASSERT(count < NUM_INSNS_RETIRED,
>> shouldn't be "__GUEST_ASSERT(count >= NUM_INSNS_RETIRED," ?
> Yes. I had intentionally inverted the check to verify the assert message and
> forgot to flip it back before hitting "send". Thankfully, I didn't forget before
> posting formally[*]. Ugh, but I did forget to Cc you on that series, sorry :-/
>
> [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250117234204.2600624-6-seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx
Good to know. Thanks.
>
