Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752819AbcK1RpF (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:45:05 -0500 Received: from mail-qt0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:32937 "EHLO mail-qt0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751432AbcK1Ro6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:44:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1479863680-117511-1-git-send-email-dmatlack@google.com> From: David Matlack Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:44:19 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] VMX Capability MSRs To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: kvm list , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jim Mattson , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1557 Lines: 39 On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 23/11/2016 02:14, David Matlack wrote: >> This patchset includes v2 of "KVM: nVMX: support restore of VMX capability >> MSRs" (patch 1) as well as some additional related patches that came up >> while preparing v2. >> >> Patches 2 and 3 make KVM's emulation of MSR_IA32_VMX_CR{0,4}_FIXED1 more >> accurate. Patch 4 fixes a bug in emulated VM-entry that came up when >> testing patches 2 and 3. >> >> Changes since v1: >> * Support restoring less-capable versions of MSR_IA32_VMX_BASIC, >> MSR_IA32_VMX_CR{0,4}_FIXED{0,1}. >> * Include VMX_INS_OUTS in MSR_IA32_VMX_BASIC initial value. >> >> David Matlack (4): >> KVM: nVMX: support restore of VMX capability MSRs >> KVM: nVMX: fix checks on CR{0,4} during virtual VMX operation >> KVM: nVMX: accurate emulation of MSR_IA32_CR{0,4}_FIXED1 >> KVM: nVMX: load GUEST_EFER after GUEST_CR0 during emulated VM-entry >> >> arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h | 31 ++++ >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 443 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 2 files changed, 421 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-) >> > > The main question is whether patches 2-3 actually make > vmx_restore_fixed0/1_msr unnecessary, otherwise looks great. > > It would be nice to have a testcase for patch 4, since it could go in > independently. I've got a kvm-unit-test testcase for patches 2-4 but unfortunately it depends on changes we've made internally to the kvm-unit-tests, and we're a bit behind on getting those upstreamed. > > Paolo