From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754170AbcCJM0Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:26:25 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41137 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751586AbcCJM0L (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:26:11 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: MMU: fix ept=0/pte.u=0/pte.w=0/CR0.WP=0/CR4.SMEP=1/EFER.NX=0 combo To: Xiao Guangrong , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org References: <1457437467-65707-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1457437467-65707-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <56E12FF0.90202@linux.intel.com> <56E147D7.3040409@redhat.com> <56E16527.4020908@linux.intel.com> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <56E167DE.4090602@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:26:06 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56E16527.4020908@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/03/2016 13:14, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >> More precisely, ignore_bits is only needed if guest EFER.NX=0 and we're >> not in this CR0.WP=1/CR4.SMEP=0 situation. In theory you could have >> guest EFER.NX=1 and host EFER.NX=0. > > It is not in linux, the kernel always set EFER.NX if CPUID reports it, > arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S: > > 204 /* Setup EFER (Extended Feature Enable Register) */ > 205 movl $MSR_EFER, %ecx > 206 rdmsr > 207 btsl $_EFER_SCE, %eax /* Enable System Call */ > 208 btl $20,%edi /* No Execute supported? */ > 209 jnc 1f > 210 btsl $_EFER_NX, %eax > 211 btsq $_PAGE_BIT_NX,early_pmd_flags(%rip) > 212 1: wrmsr /* Make changes effective */ > > So if guest sees NX in its cpuid then host EFER.NX should be 1. You're right. It's just in theory. But ignoring EFER.NX when it is 1 is technically not correct; since we have to add some special EFER_NX logic anyway, I preferred to make it pedantically right. :) Paolo