Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <5a3538861a65973f9ae6e2d0798ac17f52428ded.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] KVM: nSVM: implement ondemand allocation of the
 nested state
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:53:17 +0300
In-Reply-To: <c35cbaca-2c34-cd93-b589-d4ab782fc754@redhat.com>
References: <20200917101048.739691-1-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
         <20200917101048.739691-3-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
         <20200917162942.GE13522@sjchrist-ice>
         <d9c0d190-c6ea-2e21-92ca-2a53efb86a1d@redhat.com>
         <20200920161602.GA17325@linux.intel.com>
         <c35cbaca-2c34-cd93-b589-d4ab782fc754@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.3 (3.36.3-1.fc32) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 2020-09-20 at 18:42 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 20/09/20 18:16, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Maxim, your previous version was adding some error handling to
> > > kvm_x86_ops.set_efer.  I don't remember what was the issue; did you have
> > > any problems propagating all the errors up to KVM_SET_SREGS (easy),
> > > kvm_set_msr (harder) etc.?
> > I objected to letting .set_efer() return a fault.
> 
> So did I, and that's why we get KVM_REQ_OUT_OF_MEMORY.  But it was more
> of an "it's ugly and it ought not to fail" thing than something I could
> pinpoint.
> 
> It looks like we agree, but still we have to choose the lesser evil?
> 
> Paolo
> 
> > A relatively minor issue is
> > the code in vmx_set_efer() that handles lack of EFER because technically KVM
> > can emulate EFER.SCE+SYSCALL without supporting EFER in hardware.  Returning
> > success/'0' would avoid that particular issue.  My primary concern is that I'd
> > prefer not to add another case where KVM can potentially ignore a fault
> > indicated by a helper, a la vmx_set_cr4().

The thing is that kvm_emulate_wrmsr injects #GP when kvm_set_msr returns any non zero value,
and returns 1 which means keep on going if I understand correctly (0 is userspace exit,
negative value would be a return to userspace with an error)

So the question is if we have other wrmsr handlers which return negative value, and would
be affected by changing kvm_emulate_wrmsr to pass through the error value.
I am checking the code now.

I do agree now that this is the *correct* solution to this problem.

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky