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:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 01:06:28 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@intel.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" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@amd.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@fortanix.com>,
        "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Hu, Robert" <robert.hu@intel.com>,
        "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@intel.com>,
        Robert Hoo <robert.hu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/8] KVM: VMX: dump_vmcs() reports
 tertiary_exec_control field as well
Message-ID: <Yei1lODnpQTZLa7s@google.com>
References: <20211231142849.611-1-guang.zeng@intel.com>
 <20211231142849.611-5-guang.zeng@intel.com>
 <YeCTsVCwEkT2N6kQ@google.com>
 <7fd4cb11-9920-6432-747e-633b96db0598@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <7fd4cb11-9920-6432-747e-633b96db0598@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022, Zeng Guang wrote:
> On 1/14/2022 5:03 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Can you provide a sample dump?  It's hard to visualize the output, e.g. I'm worried
> > this will be overly log and harder to read than putting tertiary controls on their
> > own line.
> 
> Sample dump here.
> *** Control State ***
> 
> ?PinBased=0x000000ff CPUBased=0xb5a26dfa SecondaryExec=0x061037eb
> TertiaryExec=0x0000000000000010

That's quite the line.  What if we reorganize the code to generate output like:

  CPUBased=0xb5a26dfa SecondaryExec=0x061037eb TertiaryExec=0x0000000000000010
  PinBased=0x000000ff EntryControls=0000d1ff ExitControls=002befff

That keeps the lines reasonable and IMO is better organization too, e.g. it captures
the relationship between primary, secondary, and tertiary controls.

> ?EntryControls=0000d1ff ExitControls=002befff
> ?ExceptionBitmap=00060042 PFECmask=00000000 PFECmatch=00000000
> ?VMEntry: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000000 ilen=00000000
> ?VMExit: intr_info=00000000 errcode=00000000 ilen=00000003
> ???????? reason=00000030 qualification=0000000000000784
> > >   	pr_err("EntryControls=%08x ExitControls=%08x\n", vmentry_ctl, vmexit_ctl);
> > >   	pr_err("ExceptionBitmap=%08x PFECmask=%08x PFECmatch=%08x\n",
> > >   	       vmcs_read32(EXCEPTION_BITMAP),
> > > -- 
> > > 2.27.0
> > >