DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 3C297162256
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] kvm: svm: Add support for additional SVM NPF error
 codes
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: thomas.lendacky@amd.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com, joro@8bytes.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, bp@suse.de
References: <147992048887.27638.17559991037474542240.stgit@brijesh-build-machine>
 <147992049856.27638.17076562184960611399.stgit@brijesh-build-machine>
 <da3f8d2d-04c2-d2f8-0752-7d484c9bc25b@redhat.com>
 <e8911a18-ce93-ca01-2876-3f7e90091f92@amd.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <21b9f4db-f929-80f6-6ad2-6fa3b77f82c0@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:44:44 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e8911a18-ce93-ca01-2876-3f7e90091f92@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2043
Lines: 49

On 31/07/2017 15:30, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
> 
> On 07/27/2017 11:27 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 23/11/2016 18:01, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>>>   +    /*
>>> +     * Before emulating the instruction, check if the error code
>>> +     * was due to a RO violation while translating the guest page.
>>> +     * This can occur when using nested virtualization with nested
>>> +     * paging in both guests. If true, we simply unprotect the page
>>> +     * and resume the guest.
>>> +     *
>>> +     * Note: AMD only (since it supports the PFERR_GUEST_PAGE_MASK used
>>> +     *       in PFERR_NEXT_GUEST_PAGE)
>>> +     */
>>> +    if (error_code == PFERR_NESTED_GUEST_PAGE) {
>>> +        kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(vcpu->kvm, gpa_to_gfn(cr2));
>>> +        return 1;
>>> +    }
>>
>>
>> What happens if L1 is mapping some memory that is read only in L0?  That
>> is, the L1 nested page tables make it read-write, but the L0 shadow
>> nested page tables make it read-only.
>>
>> Accessing it would cause an NPF, and then my guess is that the L1 guest
>> would loop on the failing instruction instead of just dropping the write.
>>
> 
> 
> Not sure if I am able to follow your use case. Could you please explain me
> in bit detail.
> 
> The purpose of the code above was really for when we resume from the L2 guest
> back to the L1 guest. The L1 page tables are marked RO when in the L2 guest
> (for shadow paging) as I recall, so when we come back to the L1 guest, it can
> get a fault since its page tables are not marked writeable at L0 as they
> need to be.

There can be different cases where an L0->L2 shadow nested page table is
marked read only, in particular when a page is read only in L1's nested
page tables.  If such a page is accessed by L2 while walking page tables
it will cause a nested page fault (page table walks are write accesses).
 However, after kvm_mmu_unprotect_page you will get another page fault,
and again in an endless stream.

Instead, emulation would have caused a nested page fault vmexit, I think.

Paolo