Oops. Anyhow, I see my patch has done a similar change in init_vmcb() , so you may want to revert it as well.
Nadav Bruce Rogers <[email protected]> wrote: > Commit d28bc9dd25ce reversed the order of two lines which initialize cr0, > allowing the current (old) cr0 value to mess up vcpu initialization. > This was observed in the checks for cr0 X86_CR0_WP bit in the context of > kvm_mmu_reset_context(). Besides, setting vcpu->arch.cr0 after vmx_set_cr0() > is completely redundant. Change the order back to ensure proper vcpu > intiialization. > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Rogers <[email protected]> > --- > arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > index e2951b6..21507b4 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > @@ -4993,8 +4993,8 @@ static void vmx_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool > init_event) > vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, vmx->vpid); > > cr0 = X86_CR0_NW | X86_CR0_CD | X86_CR0_ET; > - vmx_set_cr0(vcpu, cr0); /* enter rmode */ > vmx->vcpu.arch.cr0 = cr0; > + vmx_set_cr0(vcpu, cr0); /* enter rmode */ > vmx_set_cr4(vcpu, 0); > vmx_set_efer(vcpu, 0); > vmx_fpu_activate(vcpu); > -- > 1.9.0
