On 15/03/2018 10:56, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> + EVMCS1_FIELD(VM_EXIT_MSR_STORE_ADDR, vm_exit_msr_store_addr,
>> + HV_VMX_ENLIGHTENED_CLEAN_FIELD_ALL),
>> + EVMCS1_FIELD(VM_EXIT_MSR_LOAD_ADDR, vm_exit_msr_load_addr,
>> + HV_VMX_ENLIGHTENED_CLEAN_FIELD_ALL),
>> + EVMCS1_FIELD(VM_ENTRY_MSR_LOAD_ADDR, vm_entry_msr_load_addr,
>> + HV_VMX_ENLIGHTENED_CLEAN_FIELD_ALL),
>> + EVMCS1_FIELD(VM_EXIT_MSR_STORE_COUNT, vm_exit_msr_store_count,
>> + HV_VMX_ENLIGHTENED_CLEAN_FIELD_ALL),
>> + EVMCS1_FIELD(VM_EXIT_MSR_LOAD_COUNT, vm_exit_msr_load_count,
>> + HV_VMX_ENLIGHTENED_CLEAN_FIELD_ALL),
>> + EVMCS1_FIELD(VM_ENTRY_MSR_LOAD_COUNT, vm_entry_msr_load_count,
>> + HV_VMX_ENLIGHTENED_CLEAN_FIELD_ALL),
Hmm, actually these six are used. I guess
HV_VMX_ENLIGHTENED_CLEAN_FIELD_ALL is the best we can do, apart from
asking Microsoft to fix the spec.
>>> +{
>>> + *pin_based_exec_ctrl &= ~PIN_BASED_POSTED_INTR;> + *cpu_based_2nd_exec_ctrl &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUAL_INTR_DELIVERY;
>>> + *cpu_based_2nd_exec_ctrl &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES;
>>> + *cpu_based_2nd_exec_ctrl &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_APIC_REGISTER_VIRT;
>>> + *cpu_based_2nd_exec_ctrl &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_PML;
>>> + *cpu_based_2nd_exec_ctrl &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_VMFUNC;
>>> + *cpu_based_2nd_exec_ctrl &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_SHADOW_VMCS;
>>> + *cpu_based_2nd_exec_ctrl &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_TSC_SCALING;
>>> + *cpu_based_2nd_exec_ctrl &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_PAUSE_LOOP_EXITING;
>>> + *pin_based_exec_ctrl &= ~PIN_BASED_VMX_PREEMPTION_TIMER;
>> How can these be set?
>>
> They can not if Hyper-V behaves but Radim didn't want to trust it -- so
> the suggestion was to forcefully disable unsupported controls.
Yeah, it's good to have, especially if placed before we start using the
values that are read.
>> This is wrong, we're reading the VMCS so the values must already be
>> sanitized (and if not, that's the bug and we want dump_vmcs to print the
>> "wrong" values).
>
> The problem is that we vmcs_read these fields later in the function and
> this will now WARN(). Initally, there was no WARN() for non-existent
> fields so this could work (we would just print zeroes for unsupported
> fields). Maybe, additional WARN_ON() is not a big deal here.
If you WARN(), isn't it because the secondary_exec_control had a bad
value to begin with? As you say, the controls should never be set.
Thanks,
Paolo
