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: <9cf65a1d7b96c69077779d7a11777004d0bce6c9.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] KVM: VMX: Configure list of user return MSRs at
 module init
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 15:34:19 +0300
In-Reply-To: <YJlNsvKoFIKI2V/V@google.com>
References: <20210504171734.1434054-1-seanjc@google.com>
         <20210504171734.1434054-9-seanjc@google.com>
         <db161b4dd7286870db5adb9324e4941f0dc3f098.camel@redhat.com>
         <YJlNsvKoFIKI2V/V@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5 (3.36.5-2.fc32) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 15:13 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-05-04 at 10:17 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > @@ -6929,18 +6942,10 @@ static int vmx_create_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  			goto free_vpid;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(vmx_uret_msrs_list) != MAX_NR_USER_RETURN_MSRS);
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < vmx_nr_uret_msrs; ++i) {
> > > +		vmx->guest_uret_msrs[i].data = 0;
> > >  
> > > -	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vmx_uret_msrs_list); ++i) {
> > > -		u32 index = vmx_uret_msrs_list[i];
> > > -		int j = vmx->nr_uret_msrs;
> > > -
> > > -		if (kvm_probe_user_return_msr(index))
> > > -			continue;
> > > -
> > > -		vmx->guest_uret_msrs[j].slot = i;
> > I don't see anything initalizing the .slot after this patch.
> > Now this code is removed later which masks this bug, 
> > but for the bisect sake, I think that this patch 
> > should still be fixed.
> 
> Egad, indeed it's broken.  I'll retest the whole series to verify the other
> patches will bisect cleanly.
> 
> Nice catch!
> 
Thanks!

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky