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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54633C43215 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26ABD2070A for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="cyRBSgt8" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726182AbfLCM1u (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Dec 2019 07:27:50 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-f65.google.com ([209.85.167.65]:45482 "EHLO mail-lf1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725907AbfLCM1u (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Dec 2019 07:27:50 -0500 Received: by mail-lf1-f65.google.com with SMTP id 203so2741785lfa.12; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 04:27:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lPde8Be7r9/wxtONVuki371HY8PY1x8aHotJ6fyWpvE=; b=cyRBSgt8Vp0TMyavVQuKIzKsahinYHMrmjn4ZPsKZLSEf6RsQxIpOxdj6tR3opxY9h UbFZBYZhS5HxvsHmST7Xp0fTATmTm/C4ORawgBhWmiI9WqtdNj6HaM8ixphoEWd0Ac2h F/2TQz7iT3E1bUm9zHS3O8b1fZvxfBVKTh6gEOVff9OK4oLKDelUM+byurOqrfUBb2vP n4nKAEIHBTHcuEmD8UOTJeQBhMtoyRktZDhu9hs6TH1q1eyj56w4S50FcXUMojr8sYFy 96RvTCIC9yN+wN37w1lwXsUxwl6G+ufj+VvNCGVkeOYuR0AbcKX5xrgMYYFMqiH6IW7K Z/Vw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lPde8Be7r9/wxtONVuki371HY8PY1x8aHotJ6fyWpvE=; b=Vl2sEyM9oJrEasHayCcGt2ZEHyqM7LB6r2546NGx9B+cDEwbHVB66s/Q3BqIGO5p0k YDOeI/qRRG4uenTIeTRokvLtfOQXLXTSQFJ5mnQHe4Vw28UdC39u0b3+RGbF5GBdGdgh Wu/l+6yI2al+K3iW6VGcwNfWtkg3lZPyEPSjTDtsnAQoVKzouBbK+o1Db0B7uJGWOwXj tvRB6z7gyl7Aza/U+i0R8/9jMVQE/U1mkBq4sTnm3dfI797DGpdve9rGHUO6nTFiILpH HM3KTqOBSzm8Z9SRNc/MT9ZsUAkv0KZvh20aDEV5DYCU96kopmJ+94rKBT1mTbAwwqqp iJQA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXKoleWtLpA/hJPHH+NWjl6WJhp/hMeNStL34j9RddjmVd2UCrH VsqBf0sLZ/6vFSFAe9GprPAYxo0MlP8aokT6VcU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy8e5IHf9NtkAIhwQXFm1S5l12/xlMUAoD1iNKmoiDHVWTZ5buLIbTFKBagaXSyPnPEMslS5vOVw6hlCYghobk= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4194:: with SMTP id z20mr2592432lfh.20.1575376067703; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 04:27:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191127203114.766709977@linuxfoundation.org> <20191127203119.676489279@linuxfoundation.org> <20191202145105.GA571975@kroah.com> <828cf8b7-11ac-e707-57b6-cb598cc37f1b@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <828cf8b7-11ac-e707-57b6-cb598cc37f1b@redhat.com> From: Jack Wang Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 13:27:36 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 067/306] KVM: nVMX: move check_vmentry_postreqs() call to nested_vmx_enter_non_root_mode() To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable , Sean Christopherson , Jim Mattson , Sasha Levin Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org snip > > > > Should we simply revert the patch, maybe also > > 9fe573d539a8 ("KVM: nVMX: reset cache/shadows when switching loaded VMCS") > > > > Both of them are from one big patchset: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10616179/ > > > > Revert both patches recover the regression I see on kvm-unit-tests. > > Greg already included the patches that the bot missed, so it's okay. > > Paolo > Sorry, I think I gave wrong information initially, it's 9fe573d539a8 ("KVM: nVMX: reset cache/shadows when switching loaded VMCS") which caused regression. Should we revert or there's following up fix we should backport? Thanks, Jack