[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [XEN PATCH v1 3/4] x86:hvm: guard calls to nestedhvm routines
- To: Sergiy Kibrik <Sergiy_Kibrik@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 16:38:36 +0100
- Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
- Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 15:38:45 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 20.03.2025 11:38, Sergiy Kibrik wrote:
> Check whether nested HVM is enabled for domain before calling
> nestedhvm_vcpu_*()
> and other not already guarded nestedhvm functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergiy Kibrik <Sergiy_Kibrik@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 6 ++++--
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/asid.c | 2 +-
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c | 6 +++---
> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Afaics common and VMX code have quite a few more references to
nestedhvm_vcpu_in_guestmode(), without nestedhvm_enabled(). Are they all
fine to keep as is, while the respective adjustments here are strictly
necessary? In fact I wonder whether (a) nestedhvm_vcpu_in_guestmode()
couldn't be made constant-false when nested is build-time disabled,
which ought to eliminate the need for those changes below. Or whether
(b) nestedhvm_vcpu_in_guestmode() wouldn't better include a
nestedhvm_enabled() check.
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/asid.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/asid.c
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ void svm_asid_handle_vmrun(void)
> struct vcpu *curr = current;
> struct vmcb_struct *vmcb = curr->arch.hvm.svm.vmcb;
> struct hvm_vcpu_asid *p_asid =
> - nestedhvm_vcpu_in_guestmode(curr)
> + ( nestedhvm_enabled(curr->domain) &&
> nestedhvm_vcpu_in_guestmode(curr) )
Nit: No blanks inside parentheses like these. (There's no real need for
parentheses here in the first place.)
Jan
|
