From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED911C433F5 for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 12:58:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1354839AbiDBNAr (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Apr 2022 09:00:47 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48990 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238974AbiDBNAo (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Apr 2022 09:00:44 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0B0413DE9; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 05:58:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1648904332; x=1680440332; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1oh9WbktFqlG6EG6X9CN0PCZbltAesQdU2DAWj+J/rg=; b=CKr++QeL2Wdaz4JQnjNr+yh8hR1Y4geLMbdcHxigFxFzNuW6P8PI3nuL VXwIphV6wrv8pYlAxY8vAQOLJTd2n9Qv0nMvvouZCSpUMRGJBJ6xb2bM5 E/d89jpy8ox7rwrbw55I4vQ63yplQzY3/j/9UyhBgV1kWFb4LHnFrYN0o en94PqMN+4NuTyqLGPFgL6Bh+xOUtqc0OP2FepTxlujaUF5sebUu+JLOM gHURBOJxHWcA9BccMCANS8s+kHX9duVlpcBc6ER67Pwauun8T097085Rw qYvYPJPF48V0Z4pZTdCOvyYndG8vkFHg90qqNTX7jvIOR0GL65U7lAO2p g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10304"; a="260286864" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,230,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="260286864" Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Apr 2022 05:58:52 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,230,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="548132631" Received: from zengguan-mobl1.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.254.208.38]) ([10.254.208.38]) by orsmga007-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Apr 2022 05:58:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1c6ad344-299c-bd78-c6e7-79a815e15ef1@intel.com> Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 20:58:38 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/8] KVM: VMX: Detect Tertiary VM-Execution control when setup VMCS config Content-Language: en-US To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Joerg Roedel , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , Dave Hansen , "Luck, Tony" , Kan Liang , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Kim Phillips , Jarkko Sakkinen , Jethro Beekman , "Huang, Kai" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Hu, Robert" , "Gao, Chao" , Robert Hoo References: <20220304080725.18135-1-guang.zeng@intel.com> <20220304080725.18135-4-guang.zeng@intel.com> From: Zeng Guang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/1/2022 6:41 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022, Zeng Guang wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c >> index c569dc2b9192..8a5713d49635 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c >> @@ -2422,6 +2422,21 @@ static __init int adjust_vmx_controls(u32 ctl_min, u32 ctl_opt, >> return 0; >> } >> >> +static __init int adjust_vmx_controls_64(u64 ctl_min, u64 ctl_opt, > I slightly prefer controls64 over controls_64. As usual, KVM is inconsistent as > a whole, but vmcs_read/write64 omit the underscore, so we can at least be somewhat > consistent within VMX. > >> + u32 msr, u64 *result) >> +{ >> + u64 allowed1; >> + >> + rdmsrl(msr, allowed1); >> + >> + /* Ensure minimum (required) set of control bits are supported. */ >> + if (ctl_min & ~allowed1) > Eh, just drop @ctl_min. Practically speaking, there is zero chance tertiary > controls or any other control of this nature will ever be mandatory. Secondary > controls would fall into the same boat, but specifying min=0 allows it to share > helpers, so it's the lesser of evils. > > With the error return gone, this can be > > static __init u64 adjust_vmx_controls64(u64 ctl_opt, u32 msr) > { > u64 allowed; > > rdmsrl(msr, allowed); > > return ctl_opt & allowed; > } Make sense. I will change it.  Thanks. > Alternatively, we could take the control-to-modify directly and have no return, > but I like having the "u64 opt = ..." in the caller.