linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: x86: pending exceptions must not be blocked by an injected event

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: <889f4565fb9b86e77ed22da6cbbe649311744f16.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 01 Apr 2021 20:12:58 +0300
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: x86: pending exceptions must not be blocked by
 an injected event

On Thu, 2021-04-01 at 19:05 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 01/04/21 16:38, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > Injected interrupts/nmi should not block a pending exception,
> > but rather be either lost if nested hypervisor doesn't
> > intercept the pending exception (as in stock x86), or be delivered
> > in exitintinfo/IDT_VECTORING_INFO field, as a part of a VMexit
> > that corresponds to the pending exception.
> > 
> > The only reason for an exception to be blocked is when nested run
> > is pending (and that can't really happen currently
> > but still worth checking for).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
> 
> This patch would be an almost separate bugfix, right?  I am going to 
> queue this, but a confirmation would be helpful.

Yes, this patch doesn't depend on anything else.
Thanks!
Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky

> 
> Paolo
> 
> > ---
> >   arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c |  8 +++++++-
> >   arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 10 ++++++++--
> >   2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> > index 8523f60adb92..34a37b2bd486 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> > @@ -1062,7 +1062,13 @@ static int svm_check_nested_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >   	}
> >   
> >   	if (vcpu->arch.exception.pending) {
> > -		if (block_nested_events)
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Only a pending nested run can block a pending exception.
> > +		 * Otherwise an injected NMI/interrupt should either be
> > +		 * lost or delivered to the nested hypervisor in the EXITINTINFO
> > +		 * vmcb field, while delivering the pending exception.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (svm->nested.nested_run_pending)
> >                           return -EBUSY;
> >   		if (!nested_exit_on_exception(svm))
> >   			return 0;
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> > index fd334e4aa6db..c3ba842fc07f 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> > @@ -3806,9 +3806,15 @@ static int vmx_check_nested_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >   
> >   	/*
> >   	 * Process any exceptions that are not debug traps before MTF.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * Note that only a pending nested run can block a pending exception.
> > +	 * Otherwise an injected NMI/interrupt should either be
> > +	 * lost or delivered to the nested hypervisor in the IDT_VECTORING_INFO,
> > +	 * while delivering the pending exception.
> >   	 */
> > +
> >   	if (vcpu->arch.exception.pending && !vmx_pending_dbg_trap(vcpu)) {
> > -		if (block_nested_events)
> > +		if (vmx->nested.nested_run_pending)
> >   			return -EBUSY;
> >   		if (!nested_vmx_check_exception(vcpu, &exit_qual))
> >   			goto no_vmexit;
> > @@ -3825,7 +3831,7 @@ static int vmx_check_nested_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >   	}
> >   
> >   	if (vcpu->arch.exception.pending) {
> > -		if (block_nested_events)
> > +		if (vmx->nested.nested_run_pending)
> >   			return -EBUSY;
> >   		if (!nested_vmx_check_exception(vcpu, &exit_qual))
> >   			goto no_vmexit;
> >