Re: [PATCH] kvm: nVMX: VMCLEAR should not cause the vCPU to shut down

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



That sounds good to me.

Thanks!

--jim

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2017-03-02 12:41-0800, Jim Mattson:
>> VMCLEAR should silently ignore a failure to clear the launch state of
>> the VMCS referenced by the operand.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 22 ++++------------------
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> index ef4ba71dbb66..bca497a92541 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> @@ -7259,9 +7259,8 @@ static int handle_vmoff(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  static int handle_vmclear(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  {
>>       struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
>> +     u32 zero = 0;
>>       gpa_t vmptr;
>> -     struct vmcs12 *vmcs12;
>> -     struct page *page;
>>
>>       if (!nested_vmx_check_permission(vcpu))
>>               return 1;
>> @@ -7272,22 +7271,9 @@ static int handle_vmclear(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>       if (vmptr == vmx->nested.current_vmptr)
>>               nested_release_vmcs12(vmx);
>>
>> -     page = nested_get_page(vcpu, vmptr);
>> -     if (page == NULL) {
>> -             /*
>> -              * For accurate processor emulation, VMCLEAR beyond available
>> -              * physical memory should do nothing at all. However, it is
>> -              * possible that a nested vmx bug, not a guest hypervisor bug,
>> -              * resulted in this case, so let's shut down before doing any
>> -              * more damage:
>> -              */
>
> (Consciously introducing bugs in order to somewhat mitigate possible
>  bugs is not desirable.)
>
>> -             kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_TRIPLE_FAULT, vcpu);
>> -             return 1;
>> -     }
>> -     vmcs12 = kmap(page);
>> -     vmcs12->launch_state = 0;
>> -     kunmap(page);
>> -     nested_release_page(page);
>> +     kvm_write_guest(vcpu->kvm,
>
> I have changed this line to
>
>         kvm_vcpu_write_guest(vcpu
>
> and applied to kvm/queue (planning to merge in 4.11-rc2).
>
> The change makes a difference if the guest is using VMX inside SMM and I
> don't see a reason to avoid the SMM address space in that case.
> Let me know what you think,
>
> thanks.
>
>> +                     vmptr + offsetof(struct vmcs12, launch_state),
>> +                     &zero, sizeof(zero));
>
> (Could have also been kvm_vcpu_write_guest_page(), but that is only
>  performance gain.)
>
>>
>>       nested_free_vmcs02(vmx, vmptr);
>>
>> --
>> 2.12.0.rc1.440.g5b76565f74-goog
>>




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux