On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 02:08, Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx> 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>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h | 1 +
>>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 25 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 06412ba46aa3..b78607dd113c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>>> @@ -11775,6 +11775,24 @@ static int nested_vmx_check_pml_controls(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static int nested_vmx_check_unrestricted_guest_controls(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>> + struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>>> +{
>>> + if (nested_cpu_has2(vmcs12, SECONDARY_EXEC_UNRESTRICTED_GUEST) &&
>>> + !nested_cpu_has_ept(vmcs12))
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int nested_vmx_check_mode_based_ept_exec_controls(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>> + struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>>> +{
>>> + if (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)
>>> {
>>> @@ -12397,6 +12415,12 @@ 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_unrestricted_guest_controls(vcpu, vmcs12))
>>> + return VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD;
>>> +
>>> + if (nested_vmx_check_mode_based_ept_exec_controls(vcpu, vmcs12))
>>> + return VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD;
>>> +
>>> if (nested_vmx_check_shadow_vmcs_controls(vcpu, vmcs12))
>>> return VMXERR_ENTRY_INVALID_CONTROL_FIELD;
>>>
>>> --
>>> 2.19.0.444.g18242da7ef-goog
>>>
>
> Ping?
Should I construe the continued silence as rejection?
