On Wed, Mar 08, 2023, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 6:36 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Thinking about this more, I would rather revert commit 1e0c7d40758b ("KVM: SVM:
> > hyper-v: Remote TLB flush for SVM") or fix the thing properly straitaway. KVM
> > doesn't magically handle the flushes correctly for the shadow/legacy MMU, KVM just
> > happens to get lucky and not run afoul of the underlying bugs.
>
> I don't think it's about luck---the legacy MMU's zapping/invalidation
> seems to invoke the flush hypercall correctly:
...for the paths that Jeremi has exercised, and for which a stale TLB entry is
fatal to L2. E.g. kvm_unmap_gfn_range() does not have a range-based TLB flush
in its path and fully relies on the buggy kvm_flush_remote_tlbs().
In other words, KVM is getting lucky :-)
> Jeremi, did you ever track the call stack where
> hyperv_nested_flush_guest_mapping is triggered?
I don't think it matters. As above, it only takes one path where KVM is fully
relying on kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() for the whole thing to fall apart.
