Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Tue, 12 Dec 2023 07:28:54 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eTT97oDmQT7pxeOMLQbt-371aMtC2Kev+-kWXVRDVrjeg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20220921003201.1441511-11-seanjc@google.com> <20231207010302.2240506-1-jmattson@google.com>
 <ZXHw7tykubfG04Um@google.com> <CALMp9eTT97oDmQT7pxeOMLQbt-371aMtC2Kev+-kWXVRDVrjeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ZXh8Nq_y_szj1WN0@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/12] KVM: x86: never write to memory from kvm_vcpu_check_block()
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc:     alexandru.elisei@arm.com, anup@brainfault.org,
        aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, atishp@atishpatra.org,
        borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, chenhuacai@kernel.org, david@redhat.com,
        frankja@linux.ibm.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, james.morse@arm.com,
        kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, maz@kernel.org, mlevitsk@redhat.com,
        oliver.upton@linux.dev, palmer@dabbelt.com,
        paul.walmsley@sifive.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        suzuki.poulose@arm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 8:21=E2=80=AFAM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google=
.com> wrote:
> > Doh.  We got the less obvious cases and missed the obvious one.
> >
> > Ugh, and we also missed a related mess in kvm_guest_apic_has_interrupt(=
).  That
> > thing should really be folded into vmx_has_nested_events().
> >
> > Good gravy.  And vmx_interrupt_blocked() does the wrong thing because t=
hat
> > specifically checks if L1 interrupts are blocked.
> >
> > Compile tested only, and definitely needs to be chunked into multiple p=
atches,
> > but I think something like this mess?
>=20
> The proposed patch does not fix the problem. In fact, it messes things
> up so much that I don't get any test results back.

Drat.

> Google has an internal K-U-T test that demonstrates the problem. I
> will post it soon.

Received, I'll dig in soonish, though "soonish" might unfortunately might m=
ean
2024.