Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        linmiaohe <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        rkrcmar@redhat.com, sean.j.christopherson@intel.com,
        wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: set rflags to specify success in handle_invvpid() default case
In-Reply-To: <1a083ac8-3b01-fd2d-d867-2b3956cdef6d@redhat.com>
References: <1579749241-712-1-git-send-email-linmiaohe@huawei.com> <8736c6sga7.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> <1a083ac8-3b01-fd2d-d867-2b3956cdef6d@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:45:13 +0100
Message-ID: <87wo9iqzfa.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:

> On 23/01/20 09:55, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
>>> index 7608924ee8c1..985d3307ec56 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
>>> @@ -5165,7 +5165,7 @@ static int handle_invvpid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>  		break;
>>>  	default:
>>>  		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>>> -		return kvm_skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
>>> +		break;
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>>  	return nested_vmx_succeed(vcpu);
>> Your patch seems to do the right thing, however, I started wondering if
>> WARN_ON_ONCE() is the right thing to do. SDM says that "If an
>> unsupported INVVPID type is specified, the instruction fails." and this
>> is similar to INVEPT and I decided to check what handle_invept()
>> does. Well, it does BUG_ON(). 
>> 
>> Are we doing the right thing in any of these cases?
>
> Yes, both INVEPT and INVVPID catch this earlier.
>
> For INVEPT:
>
>         types = (vmx->nested.msrs.ept_caps >> VMX_EPT_EXTENT_SHIFT) & 6;
>
>         if (type >= 32 || !(types & (1 << type)))
>                 return nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
>                                 VMXERR_INVALID_OPERAND_TO_INVEPT_INVVPID);
>
>
>
> For INVVPID:
>
>         types = (vmx->nested.msrs.vpid_caps &
>                         VMX_VPID_EXTENT_SUPPORTED_MASK) >> 8;
>
>         if (type >= 32 || !(types & (1 << type)))
>                 return nested_vmx_failValid(vcpu,
>                         VMXERR_INVALID_OPERAND_TO_INVEPT_INVVPID);
>

Ah, true, thanks for checking!

> So I'm leaning towards not applying Miaohe's patch.

Well, we may at least want to converge on BUG_ON() for both
handle_invvpid()/handle_invept(), there's no need for them to differ.

-- 
Vitaly