Path: csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!news.unit0.net!news.panservice.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: David Hildenbrand Newsgroups: linux.kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: VMX: Fix enable VPID even if INVVPID is not exposed in vmx capability Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:00:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: Wanpeng Li , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Dmarc-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 291C78123A Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com Dkim-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 291C78123A Organization: Red Hat GmbH User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:50:09 +0000 (UTC) Sender: robomod@news.nic.it List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 91 X-Original-Cc: Paolo Bonzini , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Wanpeng Li X-Original-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:50:05 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: <6b112918-a785-bf87-71c4-8649915e7772@redhat.com> X-Original-References: <1490069935-6232-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com> <1490069935-6232-2-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com> X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Xref: csiph.com linux.kernel:1605439 On 21.03.2017 05:18, Wanpeng Li wrote: > From: Wanpeng Li > > This can be reproduced by running L2 on L1, and disable VPID on L0 if w/o > commit "KVM: nVMX: Fix nested VPID vmx exec control", the L2 crash as below: > > KVM: entry failed, hardware error 0x7 > EAX=00000000 EBX=00000000 ECX=00000000 EDX=000306c3 > ESI=00000000 EDI=00000000 EBP=00000000 ESP=00000000 > EIP=0000fff0 EFL=00000002 [-------] CPL=0 II=0 A20=1 SMM=0 HLT=0 > ES =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00009300 > CS =f000 ffff0000 0000ffff 00009b00 > SS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00009300 > DS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00009300 > FS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00009300 > GS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00009300 > LDT=0000 00000000 0000ffff 00008200 > TR =0000 00000000 0000ffff 00008b00 > GDT= 00000000 0000ffff > IDT= 00000000 0000ffff > CR0=60000010 CR2=00000000 CR3=00000000 CR4=00000000 > DR0=0000000000000000 DR1=0000000000000000 DR2=0000000000000000 DR3=0000000000000000 > DR6=00000000ffff0ff0 DR7=0000000000000400 > EFER=0000000000000000 > > Reference SDM 30.3 INVVPID: > > Protected Mode Exceptions > #UD > - If not in VMX operation. > - If the logical processor does not support VPIDs (IA32_VMX_PROCBASED_CTLS2[37]=0). > - If the logical processor supports VPIDs (IA32_VMX_PROCBASED_CTLS2[37]=1) but does > not support the INVVPID instruction (IA32_VMX_EPT_VPID_CAP[32]=0). > > So we should check both VPID enable bit in vmx exec control and INVVPID support bit > in vmx capability MSRs to enable VPID. This patch adds the guarantee to not enable VPID > if INVVPID is not exposed in vmx capability MSRs. > Makes sense to me. Wonder how many systems are out there that have VPID but not INVVPID? Or will this never happen on real hardware? > Cc: Paolo Bonzini > Cc: Radim Krčmář > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li > --- > arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 9 ++++++++- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > index 06d8080..b310214 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > @@ -1239,6 +1239,11 @@ static inline bool cpu_has_vmx_invvpid_global(void) > return vmx_capability.vpid & VMX_VPID_EXTENT_GLOBAL_CONTEXT_BIT; > } > > +static inline bool cpu_has_vmx_invvpid(void) > +{ > + return vmx_capability.vpid & VMX_VPID_INVVPID_BIT; > +} > + > static inline bool cpu_has_vmx_ept(void) > { > return vmcs_config.cpu_based_2nd_exec_ctrl & > @@ -6519,8 +6524,10 @@ static __init int hardware_setup(void) > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_NX)) > kvm_enable_efer_bits(EFER_NX); > > - if (!cpu_has_vmx_vpid()) > + if (!cpu_has_vmx_vpid() || > + !(cpu_has_vmx_invvpid())) This indentation looks weird. Can't this be fit into one line? > enable_vpid = 0; > + unrelated change > if (!cpu_has_vmx_shadow_vmcs()) > enable_shadow_vmcs = 0; > if (enable_shadow_vmcs) > -- Thanks, David