[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200127181727.GB2523@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 10:17:27 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] x86/kvm/hyper-v: move VMX controls sanitization
out of nested_enable_evmcs()
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 04:38:27PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> writes:
> > One last idea, can we keep the MSR filtering as is and add the hack in
> > vmx_restore_control_msr()? That way the (userspace) host and guest see
> > the same values when reading the affected MSRs, and eVMCS wouldn't need
> > it's own hook to do consistency checks.
>
> Yes but (if I'm not mistaken) we'll have then to keep the filtering we
> currently do in nested_enable_evmcs(): if userspace doesn't do
> KVM_SET_MSR for VMX MSRs (QEMU<4.2) then the filtering in
> vmx_restore_control_msr() won't happen and the guest will see the
> unfiltered set of controls...
Ya, my thought was to add this on top of the nested_enable_evmcs() code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists