Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Junaid Shahid <junaids@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Free all roots when emulating INVVPID for L1 and EPT is disabled, as
> outstanding changes to the page tables managed by L1 need to be
> recognized. Because L1 and L2 share an MMU when EPT is disabled, and
> because VPID is not tracked by the MMU role, all roots in the current
> MMU (root_mmu) need to be freed, otherwise a future nested VM-Enter or
> VM-Exit could do a fast CR3 switch (without a flush/sync) and consume
> stale SPTEs.
>
> Fixes: 5c614b3583e7b ("KVM: nVMX: nested VPID emulation")
> Signed-off-by: Junaid Shahid <junaids@xxxxxxxxxx>
> [sean: ported to upstream KVM, reworded the comment and changelog]
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> index 9624cea4ed9f..bc74fbbf33c6 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> @@ -5250,6 +5250,20 @@ static int handle_invvpid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> return kvm_skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Sync the shadow page tables if EPT is disabled, L1 is invalidating
> + * linear mappings for L2 (tagged with L2's VPID). Free all roots as
> + * VPIDs are not tracked in the MMU role.
> + *
> + * Note, this operates on root_mmu, not guest_mmu, as L1 and L2 share
> + * an MMU when EPT is disabled.
> + *
> + * TODO: sync only the affected SPTEs for INVDIVIDUAL_ADDR.
> + */
> + if (!enable_ept)
> + kvm_mmu_free_roots(vcpu, &vcpu->arch.root_mmu,
> + KVM_MMU_ROOTS_ALL);
> +
This is related to my remark on the previous patch; the comment above
makes me think I'm missing something obvious, enlighten me please)
My understanding is that L1 and L2 will share arch.root_mmu not only
when EPT is globally disabled, we seem to switch between
root_mmu/guest_mmu only when nested_cpu_has_ept(vmcs12) but different L2
guests may be different on this. Do we need to handle this somehow?
> return nested_vmx_succeed(vcpu);
> }
--
Vitaly
