[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 1/5] VMX: drop vmx_virt_exception and make vmx_vmfunc static
- To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 18:22:37 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=DGevIx+P3bFvuUAu1cGXEWumND3x1C29q42wN6RmLEY=; b=PWU7UPzO2pvTKYtSypi+BLCZwprojgGPfrb9q+UfFmOoou0MZMQZkjSfZChlOVxB/T921HeC7x6HIJuyf4wYt0G8zcfpJPuJmRkHRI5f2qTgCzvOnbS7zmgtf+HvGC6Ky1OynsbaEwTaYXZljII0Fo7v62TQocbKv5uEs0Ni2VHZB20S0lf/WyIqqcnLPz+DTfd3vLJNF+5v9OvQYgwyxr0lasgSVArCaRFvjb3koYo+6/QLj1l86adpuBeDHCdkFXjmmu5cYDbgAV3h9MYv2Q37ySmpTmF1qvA0NMopSURKeDSvfkdWmit2vN5FIcid5MFXQ1BHOXYGLX4GR3wauw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=enNS52afnS63SxlDWovPieDeDz6wQ2l7WDMKZO1l+Xb8zwICgxJG5Xq23SykSLSGHq767Mr5Abf1loM7USAxL77Z2DXvyVJZi8Cltf05Ach7kxcLsaPxqvxsgiuQLONqNK01LcCd2IP8g0XFFRimiKnPIMdPZbYQk2s3idrOd/oDTat0WHM1T6hwFXrvvJMhtefhWauGIVl+pJiRrWAmqZ+v9dRV9S2bZgm6blneKcy4lELv8FWALZTWiumKxj2TDmqe54YXR8d4+8+5/qIKMWatKvPNLvRLYsGcBaY8NCLoKuqNpP/LE+X+/598HzLAXz2vXEmYxYdfsXF9/WN7BA==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- 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: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:23:17 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 21.11.2023 16:48, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 02:30:41PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The variable was introduced by 69b830e5ffb4 ("VMX: VMFUNC and #VE
>> definitions and detection") without any use and - violating Misra C:2012
>> rule 8.4 - without a declaration. Since no use has appeared, drop it.
>>
>> For vmx_vmfunc the situation is similar, but not identical: It at least
>> has one use. Convert it to be static (and make style adjustments while
>> there).
>
> I think you could also remove the sole user of vmx_vmfunc, as it's
> just a cap_check() usage (unless there are more hidden usages).
Well, perhaps (and hence my post-commit-message remark in the original
submission). Yet then I thought we permitted vmfunc use for altp2m, at
which point the cap_check() is meaningful.
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks.
>> ---
>> In how far the sole vmx_vmfunc use is actually meaningful (on its own)
>> I'm not really sure.
(Here ^^^)
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c
>> @@ -167,8 +167,7 @@ u32 vmx_secondary_exec_control __read_mo
>> u32 vmx_vmexit_control __read_mostly;
>> u32 vmx_vmentry_control __read_mostly;
>> u64 vmx_ept_vpid_cap __read_mostly;
>> -u64 vmx_vmfunc __read_mostly;
>> -bool_t vmx_virt_exception __read_mostly;
>> +static uint64_t __read_mostly vmx_vmfunc;
>
> I'm quite sure this should be __ro_after_init, but I guess we cannot
> be sure give the current code in vmx_init_vmcs_config().
I think we can be sure. But if we were to switch, I think all the
related variables should also be switched at the same time.
> Any CPU hot plugged that has a different set of VMX controls should
> not be onlined, the more that migrating an already running VMCS to
> such CPU will lead to failures if non-supported features are used.
That's the intention of that code, yes.
Jan
|