Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Don't attempt to load PDPTRs if EFER.LME=1, i.e. if 64-bit mode is
> enabled. A recent change to reload the PDTPRs when CR0.CD or CR0.NW is
> toggled botched the EFER.LME handling and sends KVM down the PDTPR path
> when is_paging() is true, i.e. when the guest toggles CD/NW in 64-bit
> mode.
>
> Split the CR0 checks for 64-bit vs. 32-bit PAE into separate paths. The
> 64-bit path is specifically checking state when paging is toggled on,
> i.e. CR0.PG transititions from 0->1. The PDPTR path now needs to run if
> the new CR0 state has paging enabled, irrespective of whether paging was
> already enabled. Trying to shave a few cycles to make the PDPTR path an
> "else if" case is a mess.
>
> Fixes: d42e3fae6faed ("kvm: x86: Read PDPTEs on CR0.CD and CR0.NW changes")
> Cc: Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Shier <pshier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> The other way to fix this, with a much smaller diff stat, is to simply
> move the !is_page(vcpu) check inside (vcpu->arch.efer & EFER_LME). But
> that results in a ridiculous amount of nested conditionals for what is a
> very straightforward check e.g.
>
> if (cr0 & X86_CR0_PG) {
> if (vcpu->arch.efer & EFER_LME) }
> if (!is_paging(vcpu)) {
> ...
> }
> }
> }
>
> Since this doesn't need to be backported anywhere, I didn't see any value
> in having an intermediate step.
>
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 95ef629228691..5f526d94c33f3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -819,22 +819,22 @@ int kvm_set_cr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr0)
> if ((cr0 & X86_CR0_PG) && !(cr0 & X86_CR0_PE))
> return 1;
>
> - if (cr0 & X86_CR0_PG) {
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> - if (!is_paging(vcpu) && (vcpu->arch.efer & EFER_LME)) {
> - int cs_db, cs_l;
> + if ((vcpu->arch.efer & EFER_LME) && !is_paging(vcpu) &&
> + (cr0 & X86_CR0_PG)) {
it seems we have more than one occurance of "if (vcpu->arch.efer &
EFER_LME)" under "#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64" and we alredy have
static inline int is_long_mode(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
return vcpu->arch.efer & EFER_LMA;
#else
return 0;
#endif
}
so if we use this instead, the compilers will just throw away the
non-reachable blocks when !(#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64), right?
> + int cs_db, cs_l;
>
> - if (!is_pae(vcpu))
> - return 1;
> - kvm_x86_ops.get_cs_db_l_bits(vcpu, &cs_db, &cs_l);
> - if (cs_l)
> - return 1;
> - } else
> -#endif
> - if (is_pae(vcpu) && ((cr0 ^ old_cr0) & pdptr_bits) &&
> - !load_pdptrs(vcpu, vcpu->arch.walk_mmu, kvm_read_cr3(vcpu)))
> + if (!is_pae(vcpu))
> + return 1;
> + kvm_x86_ops.get_cs_db_l_bits(vcpu, &cs_db, &cs_l);
> + if (cs_l)
> return 1;
> }
> +#endif
> + if (!(vcpu->arch.efer & EFER_LME) && (cr0 & X86_CR0_PG) &&
> + is_pae(vcpu) && ((cr0 ^ old_cr0) & pdptr_bits) &&
> + !load_pdptrs(vcpu, vcpu->arch.walk_mmu, kvm_read_cr3(vcpu)))
> + return 1;
>
> if (!(cr0 & X86_CR0_PG) && kvm_read_cr4_bits(vcpu, X86_CR4_PCIDE))
> return 1;
--
Vitaly
