On Wed, Mar 22, 2023, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm_onhyperv.h b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm_onhyperv.h
> > index cff838f15db5..d91e019fb7da 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm_onhyperv.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm_onhyperv.h
> > @@ -15,6 +15,13 @@ static struct kvm_x86_ops svm_x86_ops;
> >
> > int svm_hv_enable_l2_tlb_flush(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >
> > +static inline bool svm_hv_is_enlightened_tlb_enabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > +{
> > + struct hv_vmcb_enlightenments *hve = &to_svm(vcpu)->vmcb->control.hv_enlightenments;
> > +
> > + return !!hve->hv_enlightenments_control.enlightened_npt_tlb;
>
> In theory, we should not look at Hyper-V enlightenments in VMCB control
> just because our kernel has CONFIG_HYPERV enabled.
Oooh, right, because hv_enlightenments uses software reserved bits, and in theory
KVM could be running on a different hypervisor that uses those bits for something
completely different.
> I'd suggest we add a
> real check that we're running on Hyper-V and we can do it the same way
> it is done in svm_hv_hardware_setup()/svm_hv_init_vmcb():
>
> return (ms_hyperv.nested_features & HV_X64_NESTED_ENLIGHTENED_TLB)
> && !!hve->hv_enlightenments_control.enlightened_npt_tlb;
Jeremi, if you grab this, can you put the && on the previous line? I.e.
return (ms_hyperv.nested_features & HV_X64_NESTED_ENLIGHTENED_TLB) &&
!!hve->hv_enlightenments_control.enlightened_npt_tlb;
