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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 14:14:23 +0200 From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com> To: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org Cc: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>, Jiaxi Chen <jiaxi.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>, Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@....com>, x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] KVM: SVM: add wrappers to enable/disable IRET interception On Mon, 2022-12-05 at 21:11 +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote: > On 11/30/2022 1:07 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > SEV-ES guests don't use IRET interception for the detection of > > an end of a NMI. > > > > Therefore it makes sense to create a wrapper to avoid repeating > > the check for the SEV-ES. > > > > No functional change is intended. > > > > Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com> > > --- > > arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++--------- > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c > > index 512b2aa21137e2..cfed6ab29c839a 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c > > @@ -2468,16 +2468,29 @@ static int task_switch_interception(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > has_error_code, error_code); > > } > > > > +static void svm_disable_iret_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm) > > +{ > > + if (!sev_es_guest(svm->vcpu.kvm)) > > + svm_clr_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_IRET); > > +} > > + > > +static void svm_enable_iret_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm) > > +{ > > + if (!sev_es_guest(svm->vcpu.kvm)) > > + svm_set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_IRET); > > +} > > + > > nits: > s/_iret_interception / _iret_intercept > does that make sense? Makes sense. I can also move this to svm.h near the svm_set_intercept(), I think it better a better place for this function there if no objections. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky > > Thanks, > Santosh > > > static int iret_interception(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > { > > struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu); > > > > ++vcpu->stat.nmi_window_exits; > > svm->awaiting_iret_completion = true; > > - if (!sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm)) { > > - svm_clr_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_IRET); > > + > > + svm_disable_iret_interception(svm); > > + if (!sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm)) > > svm->nmi_iret_rip = kvm_rip_read(vcpu); > > - } > > + > > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu); > > return 1; > > } > > @@ -3470,8 +3483,7 @@ static void svm_inject_nmi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > return; > > > > svm->nmi_masked = true; > > - if (!sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm)) > > - svm_set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_IRET); > > + svm_enable_iret_interception(svm); > > ++vcpu->stat.nmi_injections; > > } > > > > @@ -3614,12 +3626,10 @@ static void svm_set_nmi_mask(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool masked) > > > > if (masked) { > > svm->nmi_masked = true; > > - if (!sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm)) > > - svm_set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_IRET); > > + svm_enable_iret_interception(svm); > > } else { > > svm->nmi_masked = false; > > - if (!sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm)) > > - svm_clr_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_IRET); > > + svm_disable_iret_interception(svm); > > } > > } > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists