Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: Add emulation support for #GP triggered by VM instructions

[Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>]

Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> writes:
...
>>>>> #endif diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
>>>>> b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c index 6d16481aa29d..c5c4aaf01a1a 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c @@
>>>>> -50,6 +50,7 @@ #include <asm/io.h> #include <asm/vmx.h> #include
>>>>> <asm/kvm_page_track.h> +#include <asm/e820/api.h> #include
>>>>> "trace.h"
>>>>> 
>>>>> extern bool itlb_multihit_kvm_mitigation; @@ -5675,6 +5676,12 @@
>>>>> void kvm_mmu_slot_set_dirty(struct kvm *kvm, }
>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_mmu_slot_set_dirty);
>>>>> 
>>>>> +bool kvm_is_host_reserved_region(u64 gpa) +{ + return
>>>>> e820__mbapped_raw_any(gpa-1, gpa+1, E820_TYPE_RESERVED); +}
>>>>  While _e820__mapped_any()'s doc says '..  checks if any part of
>>>> the range <start,end> is mapped ..' it seems to me that the real
>>>> check is [start, end) so we should use 'gpa' instead of 'gpa-1',
>>>> no?
>>>  Why do you need to check GPA at all?
>>> 
>> To reduce the scope of the workaround.
>> 
>> The errata only happens when you use one of SVM instructions in the
>> guest with EAX that happens to be inside one of the host reserved
>> memory regions (for example SMM).
>
> This code reduces the scope of the workaround at the cost of
> increasing the complexity of the workaround and adding a nonsensical
> coupling between KVM and host details and adding an export that really
> doesn’t deserve to be exported.
>
> Is there an actual concrete benefit to this check?

Besides reducing the scope, my intention for the check was that we should
know if such exceptions occur for any other undiscovered reasons with other
memory types rather than hiding them under this workaround.

Bandan