[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YtiTeZQ/n0LPTV/W@google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 23:44:57 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] KVM: x86: emulator: introduce
update_emulation_mode
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> +static inline int update_emulation_mode(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt)
Maybe emulator_recalc_and_set_mode()? It took me a second to understand that
"update" also involves determining the "new" mode, e.g. I was trying to figure
out where @mode was :-)
> +{
> + u64 efer;
> + struct desc_struct cs;
> + u16 selector;
> + u32 base3;
> +
> + ctxt->ops->get_msr(ctxt, MSR_EFER, &efer);
> +
> + if (!ctxt->ops->get_cr(ctxt, 0) & X86_CR0_PE) {
> + /* Real mode. cpu must not have long mode active */
> + if (efer & EFER_LMA)
> + return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE;
If we hit this, is there any hope of X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE doing the right thing?
Ah, SMM and the ability to swizzle SMRAM state. Bummer. I was hoping we could
just bug the VM.
> + ctxt->mode = X86EMUL_MODE_REAL;
> + return X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
> + }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists