Re: [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: Unrestricted guest mode requires EPT

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

 



On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Krish Sadhukhan
<krish.sadhukhan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 08/30/2018 04:05 PM, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>
>> As specified in Intel's SDM, do not allow the L1 hypervisor to launch
>> an L2 guest with the VM-execution controls for "unrestricted guest" or
>> "mode-based execute control for EPT" set and the VM-execution control
>> for "enable EPT" clear.
>>
>> Note that the VM-execution control for "mode-based execute control for
>> EPT" is not yet virtualized by kvm.
>>
>> Reported-by: Andrew Thornton <andrewth@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Peter Shier <pshier@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h |  1 +
>>   arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c         | 13 +++++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h
>> index 9527ba5d62da..665632a4b54b 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h
>> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@
>>   #define SECONDARY_EXEC_RDSEED_EXITING         0x00010000
>>   #define SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_PML               0x00020000
>>   #define SECONDARY_EXEC_XSAVES                 0x00100000
>> +#define SECONDARY_EXEC_MODE_BASED_EPT_EXEC     0x00400000
>>   #define SECONDARY_EXEC_TSC_SCALING              0x02000000
>>     #define PIN_BASED_EXT_INTR_MASK                 0x00000001
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> index 1d26f3c4985b..2bf990b5848f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> @@ -11719,6 +11719,16 @@ static int nested_vmx_check_pml_controls(struct
>> kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>         return 0;
>>   }
>>   +static int nested_vmx_check_ept_enable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> +                                      struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>> +{
>> +       if ((nested_cpu_has2(vmcs12, SECONDARY_EXEC_UNRESTRICTED_GUEST) ||
>> +            nested_cpu_has2(vmcs12, SECONDARY_EXEC_MODE_BASED_EPT_EXEC))
>> &&
>> +           !nested_cpu_has_ept(vmcs12))
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>   static int nested_vmx_check_shadow_vmcs_controls(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>                                                  struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>>   {
>> @@ -12339,6 +12349,9 @@ static int check_vmentry_prereqs(struct kvm_vcpu
>> *vcpu, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>>         if (nested_vmx_check_pml_controls(vcpu, vmcs12))
>>                 return VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD;
>>   +     if (nested_vmx_check_ept_enable(vcpu, vmcs12))
>> +               return VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD;
>> +
>>         if (nested_vmx_check_shadow_vmcs_controls(vcpu, vmcs12))
>>                 return VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD;
>>
>
> Reviewed-by: Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@xxxxxxxxxx>

Ping?



[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