From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753607AbdKIQTK (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:19:10 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f196.google.com ([209.85.223.196]:43962 "EHLO mail-io0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752195AbdKIQTI (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:19:08 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbqEKQc/nWBxNnrihPKF4WWhEwMJfv/besjsEBakCCeWb5+KLlm6n8AEZQs/R8NQMR1dPQhgo8zIQaF5jwTin0= 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> <3201561c-55c4-8edb-41bc-d4247520f61c@redhat.com> From: Jim Mattson Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:19:06 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] KVM: nVMX: Fix mmu context after VMLAUNCH/VMRESUME failure To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Wanpeng Li , Krish Sadhukhan , LKML , kvm list , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Wanpeng Li Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Will do. On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 09/11/2017 01:37, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> 2017-11-09 5:47 GMT+08:00 Jim Mattson : >>> 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