On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 03:37:51PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2013-02-20 15:14, Nadav Har'El wrote: > > Hi, > > > > By the way, if you haven't seen my description of why the current code > > did what it did, take a look at > > http://www.mail-archive.com/kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg54478.html > > Another description might also come in handy: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg54476.html > > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013, Jan Kiszka wrote about "[PATCH] KVM: nVMX: Rework event injection and recovery": > >> This aligns VMX more with SVM regarding event injection and recovery for > >> nested guests. The changes allow to inject interrupts directly from L0 > >> to L2. > >> > >> One difference to SVM is that we always transfer the pending event > >> injection into the architectural state of the VCPU and then drop it from > >> there if it turns out that we left L2 to enter L1. > > > > Last time I checked, if I'm remembering correctly, the nested SVM code did > > something a bit different: After the exit from L2 to L1 and unnecessarily > > queuing the pending interrupt for injection, it skipped one entry into L1, > > and as usual after the entry the interrupt queue is cleared so next time > > around, when L1 one is really entered, the wrong injection is not attempted. > > > >> VMX and SVM are now identical in how they recover event injections from > >> unperformed vmlaunch/vmresume: We detect that VM_ENTRY_INTR_INFO_FIELD > >> still contains a valid event and, if yes, transfer the content into L1's > >> idt_vectoring_info_field. > > > >> To avoid that we incorrectly leak an event into the architectural VCPU > >> state that L1 wants to inject, we skip cancellation on nested run. > > > > I didn't understand this last point. > > - prepare_vmcs02 sets event to be injected into L2 > - while trying to enter L2, a cancel condition is met > - we call vmx_cancel_interrupts but should now avoid filling L1's event > into the arch event queues - it's kept in vmcs12 > But what if we put it in arch event queue? It will be reinjected during next entry attempt, so nothing bad happens and we have one less if() to explain, or do I miss something terrible that will happen? -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
