linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4 2/6] KVM: nVMX: Enable nested virtualize x2apic mode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <A9667DDFB95DB7438FA9D7D576C3D87E0AC2E3F5@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 04:05:29 +0000
From:	"Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>
To:	Wincy Van <fanwenyi0529@...il.com>
CC:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"gleb@...nel.org" <gleb@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 2/6] KVM: nVMX: Enable nested virtualize x2apic mode

Wincy Van wrote on 2015-01-29:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Zhang, Yang Z <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>
> wrote:
>>> -8646,7 +8750,8 @@ static void prepare_vmcs02(struct kvm_vcpu
>>> *vcpu, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>>>                         else
>>> vmcs_write64(APIC_ACCESS_ADDR,
>>> 
>>> page_to_phys(vmx->nested.apic_access_page));
>>> -               } else if
>>> (vm_need_virtualize_apic_accesses(vmx->vcpu.kvm)) {
>>> +               } else if
>>> + (!(nested_cpu_has_virt_x2apic_mode(vmcs12))
>>> + &&
>>> +
>>> + (vm_need_virtualize_apic_accesses(vmx->vcpu.kvm))) {
>>>                         exec_control |=
>> 
>> You don't load L2's apic_page in your patch correctly when x2apic
>> mode is
> used. Here is the right change for prepare_vmcs02()(maybe other place
> also need change too):
>> 
>> @@ -8585,7 +8585,8 @@ static void prepare_vmcs02(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>> 
> CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_SECONDARY_CONTROLS))
>>                         exec_control |=
>> vmcs12->secondary_vm_exec_control;
>> 
>> -               if (exec_control &
>> SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES) { +               if
>> (exec_control & (SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES | + +
>> SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_X2APIC_MODE)) {
>>                         /*
>>                          * If translation failed, no matter: This
>> feature
> asks
>>                          * to exit when accessing the given address,
>> and if it @@ -8594,7 +8595,8 @@ static void prepare_vmcs02(struct
> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>>                          */
>>                         if (!vmx->nested.apic_access_page)
>>                                 exec_control &=
>> - ~SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES; +                          
>>       ~ (SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES | + +
>> SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_X2APIC_MODE);
>>                         else
>>                                 vmcs_write64(APIC_ACCESS_ADDR,
>> page_to_phys(vmx->nested.apic_access_page));
>> 
> 
> I think we don't need to do this, if L1 enables x2apic mode, we have
> already checked that the vmcs12->SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES
> is 0. "exec_control |= vmcs12->secondary_vm_exec_control;" merged L1's
> settings, including x2apic mode. the special case is
> vm_need_virtualize_apic_accesses, if vm_need_virtualize_apic_accesses
> returns true, the nested_cpu_has_virt_x2apic_mode will prevent us to set
> the apic access bit.

I just realized that we are talking different thing. I am thinking about VIRTUAL_APIC_PAGE_ADDR(my mistake :)). And it has been handled correctly already. For APIC_ACCESS_ADDR, you are right. The current implementation can handle it well.

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Wincy


Best regards,
Yang