On 8/14/2020 1:52 AM, Jim Mattson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:54 PM Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/11/2020 8:05 AM, Jim Mattson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:47 AM Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PKS MSR passes through guest directly. Configure the MSR to match the
L0/L1 settings so that nested VM runs PKS properly.
Signed-off-by: Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@xxxxxxxxx>
---
+ (!vmx->nested.nested_run_pending ||
+ !(vmcs12->vm_entry_controls & VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_PKRS)))
+ vmcs_write64(GUEST_IA32_PKRS, vmx->nested.vmcs01_guest_pkrs);
This doesn't seem right to me. On the target of a live migration, with
L2 active at the time the snapshot was taken (i.e.,
vmx->nested.nested_run_pending=0), it looks like we're going to try to
overwrite the current L2 PKRS value with L1's PKRS value (except that
in this situation, vmx->nested.vmcs01_guest_pkrs should actually be
0). Am I missing something?
We overwrite the L2 PKRS with L1's value when L2 doesn't support PKS.
Because the L1's VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_PKRS is off, we need to migrate L1's
PKRS to L2.
I'm thinking of the case where vmx->nested.nested_run_pending is
false, and we are processing a KVM_SET_NESTED_STATE ioctl, yet
VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_PKRS *is* set in the vmcs12.
Oh, I miss this case. What I'm still confused here is that the
restoration for GUEST_IA32_DEBUGCTL and GUEST_BNDCFGS have the same
issue, right? or I miss something.
