Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3201561c-55c4-8edb-41bc-d4247520f61c@redhat.com>
References: <1509670249-4907-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
 <1509670249-4907-3-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com> <50b82c53-1e57-88a9-25bd-76697bf2d048@oracle.com>
 <CALMp9eSoGfhutN3R7pYBYsG-Guu9tNG4ebc5r+MjD+Epxi0=Dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANRm+CwwRdcfMue9SLxNEatg07weRkRTHMmudqxCxBdJ2_t=nQ@mail.gmail.com> <3201561c-55c4-8edb-41bc-d4247520f61c@redhat.com>
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:19:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CALMp9eSuN+_881tkq+Y5_LP=kC8totiX8qSDApJP9cPXC4SDPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] KVM: nVMX: Fix mmu context after VMLAUNCH/VMRESUME failure
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
        Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@oracle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Will do.

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/11/2017 01:37, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> 2017-11-09 5:47 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>:
>>> I realize now that there are actually many other problems with
>>> deferring some control field checks to the hardware VM-entry of
>>> vmcs02. When there is an invalid control field, the vCPU should just
>>> fall through to the next instruction, without any state modifiation
>>> other than the ALU flags and the VM-instruction error field of the
>>> current VMCS. However, in preparation for the hardware VM-entry of
>>> vmcs02, we have already changed quite a bit of the vCPU state: the
>>> MSRs on the VM-entry MSR-load list, DR7, IA32_DEBUGCTL, the entire
>>> FLAGS register, etc. All of these changes should be undone, and we're
>>> not prepared to do that. (For instance, what was the old DR7 value
>>> that needs to be restored?)
>> I didn't observe real issue currently, and I hope this patchset can
>> catch the upcoming merge window. Then we can dig more into your
>> concern.
>
> Can any of you write a simple testcase for just one bug (e.g. DR7)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo

From 1583586676451938328@xxx Thu Nov 09 11:12:21 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583003100143951555
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread