On 5/5/2023 1:01 PM, Binbin Wu wrote:
On 4/21/2023 9:46 PM, Yang Weijiang wrote:
[...]
@@ -995,6 +995,9 @@ int kvm_set_cr0(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned
long cr0)
(is_64_bit_mode(vcpu) || kvm_is_cr4_bit_set(vcpu,
X86_CR4_PCIDE)))
return 1;
+ if (!(cr0 & X86_CR0_WP) && kvm_read_cr4_bits(vcpu, X86_CR4_CET))
You can use kvm_is_cr4_bit_set() instead of kvm_read_cr4_bits()
Good suggestion, thanks!
+ return 1;
+
static_call(kvm_x86_set_cr0)(vcpu, cr0);
kvm_post_set_cr0(vcpu, old_cr0, cr0);
@@ -1210,6 +1213,9 @@ int kvm_set_cr4(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned
long cr4)
return 1;
}
+ if ((cr4 & X86_CR4_CET) && !(kvm_read_cr0(vcpu) & X86_CR0_WP))
You can use kvm_is_cr0_bit_set() to check X86_CR0_WP
OK.
+ return 1;
+
[...]
@@ -536,6 +536,9 @@ bool kvm_msr_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32
index, u32 type);
__reserved_bits |= X86_CR4_VMXE; \
if (!__cpu_has(__c, X86_FEATURE_PCID)) \
__reserved_bits |= X86_CR4_PCIDE; \
+ if (!__cpu_has(__c, X86_FEATURE_SHSTK) && \
+ !__cpu_has(__c, X86_FEATURE_IBT)) \
+ __reserved_bits |= X86_CR4_CET; \
IMO, it is a bit wired to split this part from the change of
CR4_RESERVED_BITS.
Make sense, will move these lines to other patch.
__reserved_bits; \
})
