linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] KVM: SVM: implement support for vNMI

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: <Y+Z0hUGLkwADyTNu@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Feb 2023 16:44:53 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@....com>
Cc:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] KVM: SVM: implement support for vNMI

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023, Santosh Shukla wrote:
> On 2/1/2023 5:52 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> So you mean.. In vNMI mode, KVM should never need to request NMI window and eventually
> it reaches to NMI window then WARN_ON and cont.. to single step... so modified code change
> may look something like below:
> 
> static void svm_enable_nmi_window(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
>         struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
> 
>         /*
>          * With vNMI we should never need an NMI window.
>          * and if we reach here then better WARN and continue to single step.
>          */
>         WARN_ON_ONCE(is_vnmi_enabled(svm));
> 
>         if (svm_get_nmi_mask(vcpu) && !svm->awaiting_iret_completion)
>                 return; /* IRET will cause a vm exit */
> 
>         if (!gif_set(svm)) {
>                 if (vgif)
>                         svm_set_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_STGI);
>                 return; /* STGI will cause a vm exit */
>         }
> 
>         /*
>          * Something prevents NMI from been injected. Single step over possible
>          * problem (IRET or exception injection or interrupt shadow)
>          */
> 
>         svm->nmi_singlestep_guest_rflags = svm_get_rflags(vcpu);
>         svm->vmcb->save.rflags |= (X86_EFLAGS_TF | X86_EFLAGS_RF);
>         svm->nmi_singlestep = true;
> }
> 
> Does that make sense?

Yep.  Though please avoid "we" and other pronouns in changelogs and comments,
and wrap as close to the boundary as possible.