linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/12] KVM: x86: do not deliver asynchronous page faults if CR0.PG=0

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: <YgWcwQYHIFCb2pvH@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 23:16:17 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        vkuznets@...hat.com, mlevitsk@...hat.com, dmatlack@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] KVM: x86: do not deliver asynchronous page faults
 if CR0.PG=0

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > Enabling async page faults is nonsensical if paging is disabled, but
> > > it is allowed because CR0.PG=0 does not clear the async page fault
> > > MSR.  Just ignore them and only use the artificial halt state,
> > > similar to what happens in guest mode if async #PF vmexits are disabled.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 4 +++-
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > index 5e1298aef9e2..98aca0f2af12 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > @@ -12272,7 +12272,9 @@ static inline bool apf_pageready_slot_free(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  
> > >  static bool kvm_can_deliver_async_pf(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  {
> > > -	if (!vcpu->arch.apf.delivery_as_pf_vmexit && is_guest_mode(vcpu))
> > > +	if (is_guest_mode(vcpu)
> > > +	    ? !vcpu->arch.apf.delivery_as_pf_vmexit
> > > +	    : !is_cr0_pg(vcpu->arch.mmu))
> > 
> > As suggested in the previous patch, is_paging(vcpu).
> > 
> > I find a more tradition if-elif marginally easier to understand the implication
> > that CR0.PG is L2's CR0 and thus irrelevant if is_guest_mode()==true.  Not a big
> > deal though.
> > 
> > 	if (is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
> > 		if (!vcpu->arch.apf.delivery_as_pf_vmexit)
> > 			return false;
> > 	} else if (!is_paging(vcpu)) {
> > 		return false;
> > 	}
> 
> Alternatively, what about reordering and refactoring to yield:
> 
> 	if (kvm_pv_async_pf_enabled(vcpu))
> 		return false;
> 
> 	if (vcpu->arch.apf.send_user_only &&
> 	    static_call(kvm_x86_get_cpl)(vcpu) == 0)
> 		return false;
> 
> 	/* L1 CR0.PG=1 is guaranteed if the vCPU is in guest mode (L2). */
> 	if (is_guest_mode(vcpu)
> 		return !vcpu->arch.apf.delivery_as_pf_vmexit;
> 
> 	return is_cr0_pg(vcpu->arch.mmu);
> 
> There isn't any need to "batch" the if statements.

Third time's a charm...

	if (kvm_pv_async_pf_enabled(vcpu))
		return false;

	if (vcpu->arch.apf.send_user_only &&
	    static_call(kvm_x86_get_cpl)(vcpu) == 0)
		return false;

	/* L1 CR0.PG=1 is guaranteed if the vCPU is in guest mode (L2). */
	if (is_guest_mode(vcpu))
		return !vcpu->arch.apf.delivery_as_pf_vmexit;

	return is_paging(vcpu);