Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 06:31:27PM -0400, Bandan Das wrote:
>> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On 01/10/2015 13:43, Dirk Müller wrote:
>> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>> >> index 94b7d15..0a42859 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
>> >> @@ -514,7 +514,7 @@ static void skip_emulated_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> >> struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
>> >>
>> >> if (svm->vmcb->control.next_rip != 0) {
>> >> - WARN_ON(!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_NRIPS));
>> >> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_NRIPS));
>> >> svm->next_rip = svm->vmcb->control.next_rip;
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >
>> > Bandan, what was the reason for warning here?
>>
>> I added the warning so that we catch if the next_rip field is being written
>> to (even if the feature isn't supported) by a buggy L1 hypervisor.
>
> Even if the L1 hypervisor writes to the next_rip field in the VMCB, we
> would never see it in this code path, as we access the shadow VMCB in
> this statement.
>
> We don't even care if the L1 hypervisor writes to its next_rip field
> because we only write to this field on an emulatated VMEXIT and never
> read it back.
The problems is that the next_rip field could be stale. If the processor supports
next_rip, then it will clear it out on the next entry. If it doesn't,
an old value just sits there (no matter who wrote it) and the problem
happens when skip_emulated_instruction advances the rip with an incorrect
value.
> So what's the point in adding a guest-triggerable warning at all?
So, yes, maybe this doesn't have to be a guest specific warning but we still
need to warn if this unsupported field is being written to.
>
>
> Joerg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
