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;
Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 19:19:26 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
Cc:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        dmatlack@google.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Add a wrapper for reading
 INVPCID/INVEPT/INVVPID type
Message-ID: <YYGPPgCUWSEt0rQ0@google.com>
References: <20211011194615.2955791-1-vipinsh@google.com>
 <YWSdTpkzNt3nppBc@google.com>
 <CALMp9eRzPXg2WS6-Yy6U90+B8wXm=zhVSkmAym4Y924m7FM-7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YWhgxjAwHhy0POut@google.com>
 <CALMp9eQ4y+YO7THjfpHzJPmoODkUqoPUURaBvL+OdGjZhAMuTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHVum0eMByJA5Yc0iom6w5+Web105cYoJ-94jxzLPTLVpYOHSw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHVum0eMByJA5Yc0iom6w5+Web105cYoJ-94jxzLPTLVpYOHSw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 02, 2021, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:05 AM Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:54 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > > Oh, yeah, definitely.  I missed that SVM's invpcid_interception() has the same
> > > open-coded check.
> > >
> > > Alternatively, could we handle the invalid type in the main switch statement?  I
> > > don't see anything in the SDM or APM that architecturally _requires_ the type be
> > > checked before reading the INVPCID descriptor.  Hardware may operate that way,
> > > but that's uArch specific behavior unless there's explicit documentation.
> >
> > Right. INVVPID and INVEPT are explicitly documented to check the type
> > first, but INVPCID is not.
> 
> It seems to me that I can move type > 3 check to kvm_handle_invpcid()
> switch statement. I can replace BUG() in that switch statement with
> kvm_inject_gp for the default case, I won't even need INVPCID_TYPE_MAX
> in this case.

Yep.

> If you are fine with this approach then I will send out a patch where
> invalid type is handled  in kvm_handle_invpcid() switch statement.

This has my vote.