Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM: nVMX: Map enlightened VMCS upon restore when possible

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 03/05/21 17:08, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> It now looks like a bad idea to not restore eVMCS mapping directly from
> vmx_set_nested_state(). The restoration path now depends on whether KVM
> will continue executing L2 (vmx_get_nested_state_pages()) or will have to
> exit to L1 (nested_vmx_vmexit()), this complicates error propagation and
> diverges too much from the 'native' path when 'nested.current_vmptr' is
> set directly from vmx_get_nested_state_pages().
>
> The existing solution postponing eVMCS mapping also seems to be fragile.
> In multiple places the code checks whether 'vmx->nested.hv_evmcs' is not
> NULL to distinguish between eVMCS and non-eVMCS cases. All these checks
> are 'incomplete' as we have a weird 'eVMCS is in use but not yet mapped'
> state.
>
> Also, in case vmx_get_nested_state() is called right after
> vmx_set_nested_state() without executing the guest first, the resulting
> state is going to be incorrect as 'KVM_STATE_NESTED_EVMCS' flag will be
> missing.
>
> Fix all these issues by making eVMCS restoration path closer to its
> 'native' sibling by putting eVMCS GPA to 'struct kvm_vmx_nested_state_hdr'.
> To avoid ABI incompatibility, do not introduce a new flag and keep the

I'm not sure what is the disadvantage of not having a new flag.

Having two different paths with subtly different side effects however 
seems really worse for maintenance.  We are already discussing in 
another thread how to get rid of the check_nested_events side effects; 
that might possibly even remove the need for patch 1, so it's at least 
worth pursuing more than adding this second path.

I have queued patch 1, but I'd rather have a kvm selftest for it.  It 
doesn't seem impossible to have one...

Paolo

> original eVMCS mapping path through KVM_REQ_GET_NESTED_STATE_PAGES in
> place. To distinguish between 'new' and 'old' formats consider eVMCS
> GPA == 0 as an unset GPA (thus forcing KVM_REQ_GET_NESTED_STATE_PAGES
> path). While technically possible, it seems to be an extremely unlikely
> case.


> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov<vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>