[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22bc6a9f-e7fd-eb24-3441-444216a38e60@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 19:35:24 +0200
From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Greg Kurz <groug@...d.org>
Cc: kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
sukadev@...ux.ibm.com, linuxram@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: relax check on H_SVM_INIT_ABORT
Le 20/05/2020 à 19:32, Greg Kurz a écrit :
> On Wed, 20 May 2020 18:51:10 +0200
> Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> The commit 8c47b6ff29e3 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Check caller of H_SVM_*
>> Hcalls") added checks of secure bit of SRR1 to filter out the Hcall
>> reserved to the Ultravisor.
>>
>> However, the Hcall H_SVM_INIT_ABORT is made by the Ultravisor passing the
>> context of the VM calling UV_ESM. This allows the Hypervisor to return to
>> the guest without going through the Ultravisor. Thus the Secure bit of SRR1
>> is not set in that particular case.
>>
>> In the case a regular VM is calling H_SVM_INIT_ABORT, this hcall will be
>> filtered out in kvmppc_h_svm_init_abort() because kvm->arch.secure_guest is
>> not set in that case.
>>
>
> Why not checking vcpu->kvm->arch.secure_guest then ?
I don't think that's the right place.
>
>> Fixes: 8c47b6ff29e3 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Check caller of H_SVM_* Hcalls")
>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c | 4 +---
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
>> index 93493f0cbfe8..eb1f96cb7b72 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
>> @@ -1099,9 +1099,7 @@ int kvmppc_pseries_do_hcall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> ret = kvmppc_h_svm_init_done(vcpu->kvm);
>> break;
>> case H_SVM_INIT_ABORT:
>> - ret = H_UNSUPPORTED;
>> - if (kvmppc_get_srr1(vcpu) & MSR_S)
>> - ret = kvmppc_h_svm_init_abort(vcpu->kvm);
>
> or at least put a comment to explain why H_SVM_INIT_ABORT
> doesn't have the same sanity check as the other SVM hcalls.
I agree that might help. I'll send a v2 with a comment there.
>
>> + ret = kvmppc_h_svm_init_abort(vcpu->kvm);
>> break;
>>
>> default:
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists