On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 06:35:14PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2013-04-14 18:18, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 05:53:05PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2013-04-14 17:23, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:12:49PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> The logic for checking if interrupts can be injected has to be applied
> >>>> also on NMIs. The difference is that if NMI interception is on these
> >>>> events are consumed and blocked by the VM exit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> >>>> index 56e7519..ad9b4bc 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> >>>> @@ -4190,6 +4190,12 @@ static bool nested_exit_on_intr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>> PIN_BASED_EXT_INTR_MASK;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static bool nested_exit_on_nmi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + return get_vmcs12(vcpu)->pin_based_vm_exec_control &
> >>>> + PIN_BASED_NMI_EXITING;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> static void enable_irq_window(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>> {
> >>>> u32 cpu_based_vm_exec_control;
> >>>> @@ -4315,6 +4321,28 @@ static void vmx_set_nmi_mask(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool masked)
> >>>>
> >>>> static int vmx_nmi_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>> {
> >>>> + if (is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
> >>>> + struct vmcs12 *vmcs12 = get_vmcs12(vcpu);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (to_vmx(vcpu)->nested.nested_run_pending ||
> >>>> + vmcs_read32(GUEST_ACTIVITY_STATE) ==
> >>>> + GUEST_ACTIVITY_WAIT_SIPI)
> >>> The same is true for interrupt too,
> >>
> >> Yes, but aren't we already waiting with interrupts disabled in that state?
> >>
> > Why? L1 can do vmcs_write(GUEST_ACTIVITY_STATE,
> > GUEST_ACTIVITY_WAIT_SIPI) at any point.
>
> Hmm, ok.
>
> >
> >>> but I do not think that we should allow
> >>> nested guest directly enter GUEST_ACTIVITY_WAIT_SIPI state or any other
> >>> state except ACTIVE. They should be emulated instead.
> >>
> >> Well, they aren't emulated yet but directly applied. So I think the
> >> patch is correct in the current context at least.
> >>
> > If my understanding is correct the facts that it is directly applied is
> > a serious bug and should be fixed.
>
> Yeah, L1 could put the vCPU in wait-for-SIPI, and only that physical
> signal will wake it up again. But L0 will not send it...
>
> >
> >> What negative effects do you expect from entering those states with L2?
> >>
> > As I wrote below (and you misunderstood me :)) it looks like L0 external
> > interrupts do not generate vmexit while active VMCS is in Wait-For-SIPI
> > state. In any case we should carefully examine what are the implications
> > of this state since KVM never uses it and does not know how to handle it.
>
> OK, but this should be conceptually unrelated to this patch. So, given
> that you applied patch 4, should I simply remove the activity state
> check from this one in order to proceed with it?
>
Yes. Non ACTIVE vmcs state issue should be handled separately. But
until it is fixed we should remember to not enable vmx nesting by
default :)
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
