2016-08-12 18:14+0800, Wanpeng Li: > 2016-08-12 17:44 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> 2016-08-12 14:07+0800, Wanpeng Li: >>> 2016-08-09 2:16 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> If vmcs12 does not intercept APIC_BASE writes, then KVM will handle the >>>> write with vmcs02 as the current VMCS. >>>> This will incorrectly apply modifications intended for vmcs01 to vmcs02 >>>> and L2 can use it to gain access to L0's x2APIC registers by disabling >>>> virtualized x2APIC while using msr bitmap that assumes enabled. >>>> >>>> Postpone execution of vmx_set_virtual_x2apic_mode until vmcs01 is the >>>> current VMCS. An alternative solution would temporarily make vmcs01 the >>>> current VMCS, but it requires more care. >>> >>> There is a scenario both L1 and L2 are running on x2apic mode, L1 >>> don't own the APIC_BASE writes, then L2 is intended to disable x2apic >>> mode, however, your logic will also disable x2apic mode for L1. >> >> You mean a case where L1 does intercept APIC_BASE? >> >> That case is not affected, because it should cause a nested VM exit, so >> vmx_set_virtual_x2apic_mode() won't be called in the first place. > > I mean L1 doesn't intercept APIC_BASE. Then L2's write to APIC_BASE should only affect L1. L2 is buggy if it intended to disable its x2APIC with the write or L1 set up intercepts incorrectly for the indented L2. In the non-nested case, if we didn't intercept APIC_BASE in KVM, then the guest wouldn't change either; only the host would change, so I think it is correct to disable x2APIC mode in L1 only. -- 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
