[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <73b5a5bb-48f2-3a08-c76b-a82b5b69c406@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 10:20:32 +0200
From: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@...hat.com>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] nSVM: use svm->nested.save to load vmcb12
registers and avoid TOC/TOU races
On 12/09/2021 12:42, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>>
>> - if (!nested_vmcb_valid_sregs(vcpu, &vmcb12->save) ||
>> + if (!nested_vmcb_valid_sregs(vcpu, &svm->nested.save) ||
>> !nested_vmcb_check_controls(vcpu, &svm->nested.ctl)) {
> If you use a different struct for the copied fields, then it makes
> sense IMHO to drop the 'control' parameter from nested_vmcb_check_controls,
> and just use the svm->nested.save there directly.
>
Ok, what you say in patch 2 makes sense to me. I can create a new struct
vmcb_save_area_cached, but I need to keep nested.ctl because 1) it is
used also elsewhere, and different fields from the one checked here are
read/set and 2) using another structure (or the same
vmcb_save_area_cached) in its place would just duplicate the same fields
of nested.ctl, creating even more confusion and possible inconsistency.
Let me know if you disagree.
Thank you,
Emanuele
Powered by blists - more mailing lists