linux-kernel - Re: [RFT PATCH v5 3/3] KVM: nVMX: keep preemption timer enabled during L2 execution

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

Message-ID: <20160708102903.48b0421a@jnakajim-build>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:29:03 -0700
From:	yunhong jiang <yunhong.jiang@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
	Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
	Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@...el.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
	Haozhong Zhang <haozhong.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH v5 3/3] KVM: nVMX: keep preemption timer enabled
 during L2 execution

On Fri,  8 Jul 2016 14:02:13 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:

> Because the vmcs12 preemption timer is emulated through a separate
> hrtimer, we can keep on using the preemption timer in the vmcs02 to
> emulare L1's TSC deadline timer.
> 
> However, the corresponding bit in the pin-based execution control
> field must be kept consistent between vmcs01 and vmcs02.  On vmentry
> we copy it into the vmcs02; on vmexit the preemption timer must be
> disabled in the vmcs01 if a preemption timer vmexit happened while in
> guest mode.
> 
> The preemption timer value in the vmcs02 is set by vmx_vcpu_run, so it
> need not be considered in prepare_vmcs02.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> index 0048be79c7b9..8cda4449a60e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> @@ -9796,9 +9796,14 @@ static void prepare_vmcs02(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12) vmcs_write64(VMCS_LINK_POINTER, -1ull);
>  
>  	exec_control = vmcs12->pin_based_vm_exec_control;
> -	exec_control |= vmcs_config.pin_based_exec_ctrl;
> +
> +	/* Preemption timer setting is only taken from vmcs01.  */
>  	exec_control &= ~PIN_BASED_VMX_PREEMPTION_TIMER;

Do we still keep this clear here with followed changes?

> +	exec_control |= vmcs_config.pin_based_exec_ctrl;
> +	if (vmx->hv_deadline_tsc == -1)
> +		exec_control &= ~PIN_BASED_VMX_PREEMPTION_TIMER;
>  
> +	/* Posted interrupts setting is only taken from vmcs12.  */
>  	if (nested_cpu_has_posted_intr(vmcs12)) {
>  		/*
>  		 * Note that we use L0's vector here and in
> @@ -10727,8 +10732,14 @@ static void nested_vmx_vmexit(struct
> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 exit_reason, 
>  	load_vmcs12_host_state(vcpu, vmcs12);
>  
> -	/* Update TSC_OFFSET if TSC was changed while L2 ran */
> +	/* Update any VMCS fields that might have changed while L2
> ran */ vmcs_write64(TSC_OFFSET, vmx->nested.vmcs01_tsc_offset);
> +	if (vmx->hv_deadline_tsc == -1)
> +		vmcs_clear_bits(PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL,
> +				PIN_BASED_VMX_PREEMPTION_TIMER);
> +	else
> +		vmcs_set_bits(PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL,
> +			      PIN_BASED_VMX_PREEMPTION_TIMER);

Why do we need change the vmcs01 here? Per my understanding, the vmcs01 is not
changed when the L2 guest is running thus the PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL should
not be changed?  I'm not familiar with nested VMX, sorry if this is a naive
question.

Thanks
--jyh