Liran Alon <liran.alon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On 15 Jan 2020, at 19:10, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Sane L1 hypervisors are not supposed to turn any of the unsupported VMX
>> controls on for its guests and nested_vmx_check_controls() checks for
>> that. This is, however, not the case for the controls which are supported
>> on the host but are missing in enlightened VMCS and when eVMCS is in use.
>>
>> It would certainly be possible to add these missing checks to
>> nested_check_vm_execution_controls()/_vm_exit_controls()/.. but it seems
>> preferable to keep eVMCS-specific stuff in eVMCS and reduce the impact on
>> non-eVMCS guests by doing less unrelated checks. Create a separate
>> nested_evmcs_check_controls() for this purpose.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.h | 1 +
>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 3 +++
>> 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c
>> index b5d6582ba589..88f462866396 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/evmcs.c
>> @@ -4,9 +4,11 @@
>> #include <linux/smp.h>
>>
>> #include "../hyperv.h"
>> -#include "evmcs.h"
>> #include "vmcs.h"
>> +#include "vmcs12.h"
>> +#include "evmcs.h"
>> #include "vmx.h"
>> +#include "trace.h"
>>
>> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(enable_evmcs);
>>
>> @@ -378,6 +380,58 @@ void nested_evmcs_filter_control_msr(u32 msr_index, u64 *pdata)
>> *pdata = ctl_low | ((u64)ctl_high << 32);
>> }
>>
>> +int nested_evmcs_check_controls(struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> + u32 unsupp_ctl;
>> +
>> + unsupp_ctl = vmcs12->pin_based_vm_exec_control &
>> + EVMCS1_UNSUPPORTED_PINCTRL;
>> + if (unsupp_ctl) {
>> + trace_kvm_nested_vmenter_failed(
>> + "eVMCS: unsupported pin-based VM-execution controls",
>> + unsupp_ctl);
>
> Why not move "CC” macro from nested.c to nested.h and use it here as-well instead of replicating it’s logic?
>
Because error messages I add are both human readable and conform to SDM!
:-)
On a more serious not yes, we should probably do that. We may even want
to use it in non-nesting (and non VMX) code in KVM.
Thanks,
--
Vitaly
