lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: x86: Register Processor Trace interrupt hook iff PT enabled in guest
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021, Like Xu wrote:
> > On 24/8/2021 3:37 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > @@ -11061,6 +11061,8 @@ int kvm_arch_hardware_setup(void *opaque)
> > > memcpy(&kvm_x86_ops, ops->runtime_ops, sizeof(kvm_x86_ops));
> > > kvm_ops_static_call_update();
> > > + if (ops->intel_pt_intr_in_guest && ops->intel_pt_intr_in_guest())
> > > + kvm_guest_cbs.handle_intel_pt_intr = kvm_handle_intel_pt_intr;
> >
> > Emm, it's still buggy.
> >
> > The guest "unknown NMI" from the host Intel PT can still be reproduced
> > after the following operation:
> >
> > rmmod kvm_intel
> > modprobe kvm-intel pt_mode=1 ept=1
> > rmmod kvm_intel
> > modprobe kvm-intel pt_mode=1 ept=0
> >
> > Since the handle_intel_pt_intr is not reset to NULL in kvm_arch_hardware_unsetup(),
> > and the previous function pointer still exists in the generic KVM data structure.
>
> Ooof, good catch. Any preference between nullifying handle_intel_pt_intr in
> setup() vs. unsetup()? I think I like the idea of "unwinding" during unsetup(),
> even though it splits the logic a bit.

Never mind, I figured out a way to clean all this up and land the PT interrupt
handler in vmx.c where it belongs. Getting there is a bit of a journey, but it's
very doable. That means unwinding in unsetup() is the preferred approach,
otherwise there would be potential for leaving a dangling pointer if a different
vendor module was succesfully loaded.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-08-25 22:10    [W:0.047 / U:0.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site