On Wed, 2021-02-17 at 18:37 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 17/02/21 18:29, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > All that being said, I'm pretty we can eliminate setting
> > inject_page_fault dynamically. I think that would yield more
> > maintainable code. Following these flows is a nightmare. The change
> > itself will be scarier, but I'm pretty sure the end result will be a lot
> > cleaner.
I agree with that.
>
> I had a similar reaction, though my proposal was different.
>
> The only thing we're changing in complete_mmu_init is the page fault
> callback for init_kvm_softmmu, so couldn't that be the callback directly
> (i.e. something like context->inject_page_fault =
> kvm_x86_ops.inject_softmmu_page_fault)? And then adding is_guest_mode
> to the conditional that is already in vmx_inject_page_fault_nested and
> svm_inject_page_fault_nested.
I was thinking about this a well, I tried to make an as simple as possible
solution that doesn't make things worse.
>
> That said, I'm also rusty on _why_ this code is needed. Why isn't it
> enough to inject the exception normally, and let
> nested_vmx_check_exception decide whether to inject a vmexit to L1 or an
> exception into L2?
>
> Also, bonus question which should have been in the 5/7 changelog: are
> there kvm-unit-tests testcases that fail with npt=0, and if not could we
> write one? [Answer: the mode_switch testcase fails, but I haven't
> checked why].
I agree with all of this. I'll see why this code is needed (it is needed,
since I once removed it accidentaly on VMX, and it broke nesting with ept=0,
in exact the same way as it was broken on AMD).
I''l debug this a bit to see if I can make it work as you suggest.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
>
>
> Paolo
>
