On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 20:41 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 09/07/20 20:40, Jim Mattson wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 11:31 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 09/07/20 20:28, Jim Mattson wrote: > > > > > That said, the VMCB here is guest memory and it can change under our > > > > > feet between nested_vmcb_checks and nested_prepare_vmcb_save. Copying > > > > > the whole save area is overkill, but we probably should copy at least > > > > > EFER/CR0/CR3/CR4 in a struct at the beginning of nested_svm_vmrun; this > > > > > way there'd be no TOC/TOU issues between nested_vmcb_checks and > > > > > nested_svm_vmrun. This would also make it easier to reuse the checks in > > > > > svm_set_nested_state. Maybe Maxim can look at it while I'm on vacation, > > > > > as he's eager to do more nSVM stuff. :D > > > > > > > > I fear that nested SVM is rife with TOCTTOU issues. > > > > > > I am pretty sure about that, actually. :) > > > > > > Another possibility to stomp them in a more efficient manner could be to > > > rely on the dirty flags, and use them to set up an in-memory copy of the > > > VMCB. > > > > That sounds like a great idea! Is Maxim going to look into that? > > > > Now he is! Yep :-) Best regards, Maxim Levitsky > > Paolo >
