linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] KVM: VMX: Extend BUILD_CONTROLS

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: <9f8585cd-9c99-b8bd-8400-0fa922b0d361@intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:13:54 +0800
From:   Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
        "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Hu, Robert" <robert.hu@...el.com>,
        "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
        Robert Hoo <robert.hu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] KVM: VMX: Extend BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW macro to
 support 64-bit variation

On 9/11/2021 5:28 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021, Zeng Guang wrote:
>> +static inline u##bits lname##_controls_get(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)	\
>> +{									\
>> +	return vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname;			\
>> +}									\
> This conflicts with commit 389ab25216c9 ("KVM: nVMX: Pull KVM L0's desired controls
> directly from vmcs01"), I believe the correct resolution is:
>
> ---
>   arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>   1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h
> index 4858c5fd95f2..1ae43afe52a7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h
> @@ -408,35 +408,38 @@ static inline u8 vmx_get_rvi(void)
>   	return vmcs_read16(GUEST_INTR_STATUS) & 0xff;
>   }
>
> -#define BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(lname, uname)				    \
> -static inline void lname##_controls_set(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u32 val)	    \
> -{									    \
> -	if (vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname != val) {		    \
> -		vmcs_write32(uname, val);				    \
> -		vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname = val;		    \
> -	}								    \
> -}									    \
> -static inline u32 __##lname##_controls_get(struct loaded_vmcs *vmcs)	    \
> -{									    \
> -	return vmcs->controls_shadow.lname;				    \
> -}									    \
> -static inline u32 lname##_controls_get(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)		    \
> -{									    \
> -	return __##lname##_controls_get(vmx->loaded_vmcs);		    \
> -}									    \
> -static inline void lname##_controls_setbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u32 val)   \
> -{									    \
> -	lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) | val);	    \
> -}									    \
> -static inline void lname##_controls_clearbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u32 val) \
> -{									    \
> -	lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) & ~val);	    \
> +#define BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(lname, uname, bits)			\
> +static inline								\
> +void lname##_controls_set(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val)		\
> +{									\
> +	if (vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname != val) {		\
> +		vmcs_write##bits(uname, val);				\
> +		vmx->loaded_vmcs->controls_shadow.lname = val;		\
> +	}								\
> +}									\
> +static inline u##bits __##lname##_controls_get(struct loaded_vmcs *vmcs)\
> +{									\
> +	return vmcs->controls_shadow.lname;				\
> +}									\
> +static inline u##bits lname##_controls_get(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)	\
> +{									\
> +	return __##lname##_controls_get(vmx->loaded_vmcs);		\
> +}									\
> +static inline								\
> +void lname##_controls_setbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val)		\
> +{									\
> +	lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) | val);	\
> +}									\
> +static inline								\
> +void lname##_controls_clearbit(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u##bits val)	\
> +{									\
> +	lname##_controls_set(vmx, lname##_controls_get(vmx) & ~val);	\
>   }
> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(vm_entry, VM_ENTRY_CONTROLS)
> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(vm_exit, VM_EXIT_CONTROLS)
> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(pin, PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL)
> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(exec, CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL)
> -BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(secondary_exec, SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL)
> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(vm_entry, VM_ENTRY_CONTROLS, 32)
> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(vm_exit, VM_EXIT_CONTROLS, 32)
> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(pin, PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, 32)
> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(exec, CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, 32)
> +BUILD_CONTROLS_SHADOW(secondary_exec, SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, 32)
>
>   static inline void vmx_register_cache_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   {
> --

I will rebase it. Thanks.