On 15/09/20 00:13, Sean Christopherson wrote:
+static void kvm_post_set_cr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long old_cr0,
+ unsigned long cr0)
What about using __kvm_set_cr*() instead of kvm_post_set_cr*()? That would
show that __kvm_set_cr*() is a subordinate of kvm_set_cr*(), and from the
SVM side would provide the hint that the code is skipping the front end of
kvm_set_cr*().
No, kvm_post_set_cr0 is exactly the right name because it doesn't set
any state. __kvm_set_cr0 tells me that it is a (rarely used) way to set
CR0, which this function isn't.
Sorry Tom for not catching this earlier.
Paolo
+{
+ unsigned long update_bits = X86_CR0_PG | X86_CR0_WP;
+
+ if ((cr0 ^ old_cr0) & X86_CR0_PG) {
+ kvm_clear_async_pf_completion_queue(vcpu);
+ kvm_async_pf_hash_reset(vcpu);
+ }
+
+ if ((cr0 ^ old_cr0) & update_bits)
+ kvm_mmu_reset_context(vcpu);
+
+ if (((cr0 ^ old_cr0) & X86_CR0_CD) &&
+ kvm_arch_has_noncoherent_dma(vcpu->kvm) &&
+ !kvm_check_has_quirk(vcpu->kvm, KVM_X86_QUIRK_CD_NW_CLEARED))
+ kvm_zap_gfn_range(vcpu->kvm, 0, ~0ULL);
+}
+
int kvm_set_cr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr0)
{
unsigned long old_cr0 = kvm_read_cr0(vcpu);
unsigned long pdptr_bits = X86_CR0_CD | X86_CR0_NW | X86_CR0_PG;
- unsigned long update_bits = X86_CR0_PG | X86_CR0_WP;
cr0 |= X86_CR0_ET;
@@ -842,22 +860,23 @@ int kvm_set_cr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr0)
kvm_x86_ops.set_cr0(vcpu, cr0);
- if ((cr0 ^ old_cr0) & X86_CR0_PG) {
- kvm_clear_async_pf_completion_queue(vcpu);
- kvm_async_pf_hash_reset(vcpu);
- }
+ kvm_post_set_cr0(vcpu, old_cr0, cr0);
