From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3019DC433DB for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:59:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA93F64D9A for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 20:59:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233845AbhA0U6a (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:58:30 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43480 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233717AbhA0U6D (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:58:03 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-x22c.google.com (mail-oi1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0FFBC061573 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 12:57:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id j25so3724607oii.0 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 12:57:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=h/5giWFO3wXBwHEfC55BSYMxpJoJpAHOtOFoV5lHHRA=; b=JPqZdhXyX1eoR5kq9AJVmmHtPIf8+TmY20tZ1iOVqrJYJ8CuKijXF/eZokWKR/JE3f pHt3FTS0eCKoOE/7mlq0BvkQcwRekHJnRDaWObJkDEXu66CB4Fjk8laq9J8Pr8kHpapi 2mI5B64ZVH7Le+0FqQ2JifJ1RFea6Iinj32vjRKuel2gBlWEyfa2HzLtgQCcMIdYyY2D AAyCUagm8BquLXLh9+mRd0+cuCcLlCIf6VO6LjJQpG7MF7yVh2HuCMDHP4YqnmvrkhLT nQlayhBo0NS6DgzZ4knY55DrQLM0MRC6fIDyPWyjzQ3hJnZF+0/LirccUXYO/ypeNRVV ZJvg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=h/5giWFO3wXBwHEfC55BSYMxpJoJpAHOtOFoV5lHHRA=; b=ex+Krf6jx4j3msK+p56t8e2jOFTyOdQGB5T7O8A9sZcxtwwyvRqT8XPnborF0jFupN X4XyVOd/pF2QOFWHYsWOLfJAJ7fq9vXwqzDKSf6UmTb6IRXFbUtg79eYvwNPgyI7OBXJ mfF6XZIWJKIbwQxbm4ODUPqIxIrSvnswGma15d+qLPeV6QmYS6tce/+sZX0OqVJaILtQ OPcO5ekR7FLf7lLj8pVjrgVEYxkHEaxM08EwOO+7VvkXPnd3xZUJH9DL3DgqDEBIRLxB d81lmmCV68Nb6ypwMMmbEav9XqI0zFriHwuE9RbDbaHZtPNc4URmFdZigBPfSBOj9VK3 hx9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530sJJ23fSYY5VanqFec89LuCp83jkjiNeIW8LIetdGgTyxPKzTf oH6EuMldsjv7VsxkDqhhVNWv0P60hp5J3mjPvk9j+g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzI9VMOhe2Vm3gxoArLG691jzZ+q1LVeqHx82wJThfCmBid7tvx1tL8lNW4pOrJLIQqXv1m5Swfob8ImGMF1mM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:8fa:: with SMTP id d26mr4522331oic.6.1611781041985; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 12:57:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200710154811.418214-1-mgamal@redhat.com> <20200710154811.418214-8-mgamal@redhat.com> <20201023031433.GF23681@linux.intel.com> <498cfe12-f3e4-c4a2-f36b-159ccc10cdc4@redhat.com> <4463f391-0a25-017e-f913-69c297e13c5e@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jim Mattson Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 12:57:10 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] KVM: VMX: Add guest physical address check in EPT violation and misconfig To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Mohammed Gamal , kvm list , LKML , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Joerg Roedel , Aaron Lewis , Sean Christopherson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:16 PM Jim Mattson wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:35 AM Jim Mattson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 10:43 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > > On 23/10/20 19:23, Jim Mattson wrote: > > > >> The information that we need is _not_ that provided by the advanced > > > >> VM-exit information (or by a page walk). If a page is neither writable > > > >> nor executable, the advanced information doesn't say if the injected #PF > > > >> should be a W=1 or a F=1 fault. We need the information in bits 0..2 of > > > >> the exit qualification for the final access, which however is not > > > >> available for the paging-structure access. > > > >> > > > > Are you planning to extend the emulator, then, to support all > > > > instructions? I'm not sure where you are going with this. > > > > > > I'm going to fix the bit 8=1 case, but for bit 8=0 there's not much that > > > you can do. In all likelihood the guest is buggy anyway. > > > > Did this drop off your radar? Are you still planning to fix the bit8=1 > > case to use advanced EPT exit qualification information? Or did I just > > miss it? > > Paolo, > If you're not working on this, do you mind if I ask Aaron to take a look at it? Ugh. The advanced EPT exit qualification contains nothing useful here, AFAICT. It only contains x86 page protection information--nothing about the access itself.