On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 05:44:53PM +0300, Liran Alon wrote: > > > On 27 Sep 2019, at 17:27, Sean Christopherson > > <sean.j.christopher...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 03:06:02AM +0300, Liran Alon wrote: > >> > >>> On 27 Sep 2019, at 0:43, Sean Christopherson > >>> <sean.j.christopher...@intel.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> + /* > >>> + * Immediately write vmcs02.GUEST_CR3. It will be propagated to vmcs12 > >>> + * on nested VM-Exit, which can occur without actually running L2, e.g. > >>> + * if L2 is entering HLT state, and thus without hitting vmx_set_cr3(). > >>> + */ > >> > >> If I understand correctly, it’s not exactly if L2 is entering HLT state in > >> general. (E.g. issue doesn’t occur if L2 runs HLT directly which is not > >> configured to be intercepted by vmcs12). It’s specifically when L1 enters > >> L2 > >> with a HLT guest-activity-state. I suggest rephrasing comment. > > > > I deliberately worded the comment so that it remains valid if there are > > more conditions in the future that cause KVM to skip running L2. What if > > I split the difference and make the changelog more explicit, but leave the > > comment as is? > > I think what is confusing in comment is that it seems to also refer to the > case > where L2 directly enters HLT state without L1 intercept. Which isn’t related. > So I would explicitly mention it’s when L1 enters L2 but don’t physically > enter guest > with vmcs02 because L2 is in HLT state.
Ah, gotcha, I'll tweak the wording.
