Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1648216709-44755-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <1648216709-44755-3-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com> <YkOembt1lvTEJrx0@google.com>
 <CANRm+Cy66YAyRp0JJuoyp3k-D9HSZbYF3hYO3Vjxz5w1Rz-P3g@mail.gmail.com> <YkYkiLRo+p2T/HQx@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <YkYkiLRo+p2T/HQx@google.com>
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 09:36:36 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+Czk-JYx5TsB=AvjssFS9PEvgSjk0=hKu8yo1U3ECNfOhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/5] KVM: X86: Add guest interrupt disable state support
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 06:00, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 08:04, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > index 50f011a7445a..8e05cbfa9827 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > @@ -861,6 +861,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> > > >               bool preempt_count_enabled;
> > > >               struct gfn_to_hva_cache preempt_count_cache;
> > > >       } pv_pc;
> > > > +     bool irq_disabled;
> > >
> > > This is going to at best be confusing, and at worst lead to bugs  The flag is
> > > valid if and only if the vCPU is not loaded.  I don't have a clever answer, but
> > > this needs to have some form of guard to (a) clarify when it's valid and (b) actively
> > > prevent misuse.
> >
> > How about renaming it to last_guest_irq_disabled and comments as /*
> > Guest irq disabled state, valid iff the vCPU is not loaded */
>
> What about usurping vcpu->run->if_flag?  Userspace could manipulate the data, but
> that should be fine since the data is already guest-controlled.

We should at least update vcpu->run->if_flag during vcpu scheduled for
the purpose of this patch, I think it looks strange for
vcpu->run->if_flag.

    Wanpeng