Received: by 2002:ad5:4acb:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id n11csp5745762imw; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:37:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1ssMO8MOenlQZAFI51FrJmhQH3XAL5JHAtf+uf5J4f2sOVxyvMCUEnhkq1EI0Ee6BnFJNiQ X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7fa9:b0:72f:36fd:ef89 with SMTP id qk41-20020a1709077fa900b0072f36fdef89mr14498476ejc.433.1658342278995; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:37:58 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1658342278; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=uI4kvx5uK0YgUjx2xngn3r/LMlU5Ry0ZnBptKQtTvvJuCsmpeXZmkCBRKj4BIeXJtk B3Pv6APO3Deu6wRVAFOnWY34TtgHPr6UVeFVpuQ0Lgl9jQqCc+c6KurDJLSAFVMwf41r a3WdrWGZoFu0Rk/IplHFb/y8pHRuoelziMSVdBdbY8yTFKhSephvuM1rCi7cawiFyro1 iHIRYMF5eMpC+7rH7mTBnz3KP9HnXYz7LnMI5OyX2YrIHl9mFhUXnTceXKB5SMO5oqWk NPtdQkdMG36xwZWwLq4NVU2DxZY53rnOlxNACx4LRI5wfIyOObCFUzAwvI7MPVCwYvxd tQ7A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=O/Al1R5ZaPxag7zuieAh2Klr5l3IIXmTVtnz4DBe9kE=; b=X9Rl5lm15KgbqU3ZeGb0yCrpgCSsiFWIw2IWflHFtOWClc2cs4UtYd2JH6ELgyaEyQ 8mRBZ0UGA2cCLCyDHHfxaXqs5OUgcztUMpOhmNOz6Zx4FHGZXjqAKA5IaKIEscf+39bd 2OPQFYH/MY8NJVKhXpm+ltVFDwakxzrw2CVUQfGPrGO3agUcAoda5YsvIxo1G2kUtX/K TNsNLWUswwAnXzPF58LjmeIk9bQP6+ZJveHokTFZYH9ABhlZB+3ZdmfWO6e4CMmviv9M vU3nzZR4AQg6tzrm8YT0YUMLpPCDGfxcWkvpfuhV1KQn9anPkIk03/pY6J9xgFJMRXP9 HLhA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=L5eCiHPi; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id hg3-20020a1709072cc300b00722e85dcd91si2199857ejc.175.2022.07.20.11.37.34; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:37:58 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=L5eCiHPi; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235819AbiGTRxu (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 20 Jul 2022 13:53:50 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48170 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231420AbiGTRxs (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2022 13:53:48 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF5D05C9E0 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id z3so3286005plb.1 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:53:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=O/Al1R5ZaPxag7zuieAh2Klr5l3IIXmTVtnz4DBe9kE=; b=L5eCiHPic82jvrGy8eviOxLocm+bUhF9zXDvSe3lXquqr5BiyI7gWbliS5TOC0uzTK vpCZR49PHCShxi6qUHYcu76iIqJtC+pOobAqfEKUYeR57fYA+VVz2o22lEXIUNo8VuLc OignMRlx3uxLF1Xzphm/gw+52RX8aa9KgW48tavtReu7JSfk9zR6w+Of0D2wiCzadVNo OsxLuViI5K7FxrofivrD8OOOZ8iycP3vK65xoIj/IMEQb7oy4eXoeRcAS/hRbm+IJGNh mK9g9PeeWD1WcJ97Sk1EH6lGweFo0tKUuawgOQkRPcj1FXpRu8O0YX62iUuIW1w74skl FLaA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=O/Al1R5ZaPxag7zuieAh2Klr5l3IIXmTVtnz4DBe9kE=; b=3l+gWpYEcPnrqK1Gn+V4zSDvaqcgr2WceFV7GJjumS0qP3Hp14p0KRHJwGEQUdVB4X QBoQJ3gWQi7SdaRqtvqnvFHQSwD+KKkFPLcl8eSLJ60ZLhemD34P5F5KVkGuEhwlQsSp LqcuodQKzGzyELdkjahhkrtmF6D9qQrW6hNpdtkjLtqW/2fnA928SXwbrRkvuwOfgC6f EHIk159MyE3GxkuJkGPDw4YlPW/mMVwhhjyiIxZVvOI36MZ/A691wyahpymJDUhFHQdP EcO0adcMQKkMMD1u3mk4dhUlt8y0z8rXnCpMyiMkJT5FiOvXrNPt4EzTZmJyQbHS38nd LoQQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9vmkh3iaPNEwf/uUpLe62hx2QHS44dhAqSMIghwb5HsFScf+TL X3R+c/Rkree9A+yqPsoQkEKq/g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4d0e:b0:1f1:9109:99df with SMTP id mw14-20020a17090b4d0e00b001f1910999dfmr6716536pjb.234.1658339627255; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (123.65.230.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.230.65.123]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c135-20020a621c8d000000b005290553d343sm13793677pfc.193.2022.07.20.10.53.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 17:53:42 +0000 From: Sean Christopherson To: Kechen Lu Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, chao.gao@intel.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, somduttar@nvidia.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 3/7] KVM: x86: Reject disabling of MWAIT interception when not allowed Message-ID: References: <20220622004924.155191-1-kechenl@nvidia.com> <20220622004924.155191-4-kechenl@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220622004924.155191-4-kechenl@nvidia.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL,USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, Kechen Lu wrote: > From: Sean Christopherson > > Reject KVM_CAP_X86_DISABLE_EXITS if userspace attempts to disable MWAIT > exits and KVM previously reported (via KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION) that MWAIT is > not allowed in guest, e.g. because it's not supported or the CPU doesn't > have an aways-running APIC timer. > > Fixes: 4d5422cea3b6 ("KVM: X86: Provide a capability to disable MWAIT intercepts") > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > Co-developed-by: Kechen Lu Needs your SOB. > Suggested-by: Chao Gao For code review feedback of this nature, adding Suggested-by isn't appropriate. Suggested-by is for when the idea of the patch itself was suggested by someone, where as Chao's feedback was a purely mechanical change. > --- > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > index b419b258ed90..6ec01362a7d8 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > @@ -4199,6 +4199,16 @@ static inline bool kvm_can_mwait_in_guest(void) > boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARAT); > } > > +static u64 kvm_get_allowed_disable_exits(void) > +{ > + u64 r = KVM_X86_DISABLE_VALID_EXITS; In v3 I "voted" to keep the switch to KVM_X86_DISABLE_VALID_EXITS in the next patch[*], but seeing the result I 100% agree it's better to handle it here since the "enable" patch previously used KVM_X86_DISABLE_VALID_EXITS. [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Ytg428sleo7uMRQt@google.com > + > + if(!kvm_can_mwait_in_guest()) Space after the "if".