KVM Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
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
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.

  reply index

Thread overview: 19+ 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
2020-01-15 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
2020-01-15 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 publically 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

KVM Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/0 kvm/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 kvm kvm/ https://lore.kernel.org/kvm \
		kvm@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index kvm

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.kvm


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git