On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 02:18:11PM -0400, Krish Sadhukhan wrote:
> According to section "Checks on VMX Controls" in Intel SDM vol 3C, bits 11:0
> of the PML address must be 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Kanda <mark.kanda@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h | 2 ++
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 3 ++-
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h
> index 9527ba5..2c118ad 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h
> @@ -339,6 +339,8 @@ enum vmcs_field {
> HOST_RIP = 0x00006c16,
> };
>
> +#define PML_ADDRESS_RESV_BITS 0xfff
> +
> /*
> * Interruption-information format
> */
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> index 533a327..49e707d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> @@ -11712,7 +11712,8 @@ static int nested_vmx_check_pml_controls(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> if (nested_cpu_has2(vmcs12, SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_PML)) {
> if (!nested_cpu_has_ept(vmcs12) ||
> !IS_ALIGNED(address, 4096) ||
> - address >> maxphyaddr)
> + address >> maxphyaddr ||
> + address & PML_ADDRESS_RESV_BITS)
This check is handled by "!IS_ALIGNED(address, 4096)". There's also
existing unit test coverage for this, albeit it's not what one would
describe as exhaustive, e.g.:
test_vmcs_page_addr(name, encoding, ignored,
xfail_beyond_mapped_ram, PAGE_SIZE - 1);
Is there a failure associated with this series or was this prompted
by inspection?
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> --
> 2.9.5
>
