Re: [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: WARN on any attempt to allocate shadow VMCS for vmcs02

[Vitaly Kuznetsov]

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 1/26/22 16:56, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> -	WARN_ON(loaded_vmcs == &vmx->vmcs01 && loaded_vmcs->shadow_vmcs);
>>> +	if (WARN_ON(loaded_vmcs != &vmx->vmcs01 || loaded_vmcs->shadow_vmcs))
>>> +		return loaded_vmcs->shadow_vmcs;
>> Stupid question: why do we want to care about 'loaded_vmcs' at all,
>> i.e. why can't we hardcode 'vmx->vmcs01' in alloc_shadow_vmcs()? The
>> only caller is enter_vmx_operation() and AFAIU 'loaded_vmcs' will always
>> be pointing to 'vmx->vmcs01' (as enter_vmx_operation() allocates
>> &vmx->nested.vmcs02 so 'loaded_vmcs' can't point there!).
>> 
>
> Well, that's why the WARN never happens.  The idea is that if shadow 
> VMCS _virtualization_ (not emulation, i.e. running L2 VMREAD/VMWRITE 
> without even a vmexit to L0) was supported, then you would need a 
> non-NULL shadow_vmcs in vmx->vmcs02.
>
> Regarding the patch, the old WARN was messy but it was also trying to 
> avoid a NULL pointer dereference in the caller.
>
> What about:
>
> 	if (WARN_ON(loaded_vmcs->shadow_vmcs))
> 		return loaded_vmcs->shadow_vmcs;
>
> 	/* Go ahead anyway.  */
> 	WARN_ON(loaded_vmcs != &vmx->vmcs01);
>
> ?
>

FWIW, this looks better [to my personal taste].

-- 
Vitaly