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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: set rflags to specify success in
 handle_invvpid() default case
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@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
References: <1579749241-712-1-git-send-email-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
 <8736c6sga7.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
 <1a083ac8-3b01-fd2d-d867-2b3956cdef6d@redhat.com>
 <87wo9iqzfa.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <ee7d815f-750f-3d0e-2def-1631be66a483@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:54:22 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87wo9iqzfa.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 23/01/20 10:45, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

WARN_ON_ONCE + nested_vmx_failValid would probably be better, if we
really want to change this.

Paolo