From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Cc: Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] x86/kvm/hyper-v: don't allow to turn on unsupported VMX controls for nested guests
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 08:21:02 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200116162101.GD20561@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874kwvixuq.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 09:55:57AM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com> writes:
>
> >> On 15 Jan 2020, at 19:10, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sane L1 hypervisors are not supposed to turn any of the unsupported VMX
> >> controls on for its guests and nested_vmx_check_controls() checks for
> >> that. This is, however, not the case for the controls which are supported
> >> on the host but are missing in enlightened VMCS and when eVMCS is in use.
> >>
> >> It would certainly be possible to add these missing checks to
> >> nested_check_vm_execution_controls()/_vm_exit_controls()/.. but it seems
> >> preferable to keep eVMCS-specific stuff in eVMCS and reduce the impact on
> >> non-eVMCS guests by doing less unrelated checks. Create a separate
> >> nested_evmcs_check_controls() for this purpose.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.h | 1 +
> >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 3 +++
> >> 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c
> >> index b5d6582ba589..88f462866396 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c
> >> @@ -4,9 +4,11 @@
> >> #include <linux/smp.h>
> >>
> >> #include "../hyperv.h"
> >> -#include "evmcs.h"
> >> #include "vmcs.h"
> >> +#include "vmcs12.h"
> >> +#include "evmcs.h"
> >> #include "vmx.h"
> >> +#include "trace.h"
> >>
> >> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(enable_evmcs);
> >>
> >> @@ -378,6 +380,58 @@ void nested_evmcs_filter_control_msr(u32 msr_index, u64 *pdata)
> >> *pdata = ctl_low | ((u64)ctl_high << 32);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +int nested_evmcs_check_controls(struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
> >> +{
> >> + int ret = 0;
> >> + u32 unsupp_ctl;
> >> +
> >> + unsupp_ctl = vmcs12->pin_based_vm_exec_control &
> >> + EVMCS1_UNSUPPORTED_PINCTRL;
> >> + if (unsupp_ctl) {
> >> + trace_kvm_nested_vmenter_failed(
> >> + "eVMCS: unsupported pin-based VM-execution controls",
> >> + unsupp_ctl);
> >
> > Why not move "CC” macro from nested.c to nested.h and use it here as-well instead of replicating it’s logic?
> >
>
> Because error messages I add are both human readable and conform to SDM!
> :-)
>
> On a more serious not yes, we should probably do that. We may even want
> to use it in non-nesting (and non VMX) code in KVM.
No, the CC() macro is short for Consistency Check, i.e. specific to nVMX.
Even if KVM ends up adding nested_evmcs_check_controls(), which I'm hoping
can be avoided, I'd still be hesitant to expose CC() in nested.h.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-16 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-15 17:10 [PATCH RFC 0/3] x86/kvm/hyper-v: fix enlightened VMCS & QEMU4.2 Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-15 17:10 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] x86/kvm/hyper-v: remove stale evmcs_already_enabled check from nested_enable_evmcs() Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-15 22:50 ` Liran Alon
2020-01-15 17:10 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] x86/kvm/hyper-v: move VMX controls sanitization out of nested_enable_evmcs() Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-15 22:49 ` Liran Alon
2020-01-16 8:37 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-02-03 15:11 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-15 23:27 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-01-15 23:30 ` Liran Alon
2020-01-16 8:51 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-16 16:19 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-01-16 16:57 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-17 6:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-01-18 21:42 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-19 8:54 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-22 5:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-01-22 9:37 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-22 14:33 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-22 15:08 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-22 15:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-01-22 16:29 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-22 16:40 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-23 9:15 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-23 19:09 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-24 17:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-01-27 15:38 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-27 17:53 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-27 21:52 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-27 18:17 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-01-15 17:10 ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] x86/kvm/hyper-v: don't allow to turn on unsupported VMX controls for nested guests Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-15 22:59 ` Liran Alon
2020-01-16 8:55 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-01-16 16:21 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2020-01-19 8:57 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200116162101.GD20561@linux.intel.com \
--to=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liran.alon@oracle.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rkagan@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).