Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Received-SPF: None (esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  andrew.cooper3@citrix.com) identity=pra;
  client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com";
  x-sender="andrew.cooper3@citrix.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of
  Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as
  permitted sender) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com";
  x-sender="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1";
  x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133
  ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4
  ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88
  ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ~all"
Received-SPF: None (esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com;
  envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
IronPort-SDR: lIK8uRyv3J9C8Tab6kOP2ulS71S5RTNGfnFsGUL07XbS+821uBhx7jt9xR3JgO8RLAn43MYqT0
 yYjySklJiQ59Sb12ApaM+zOvobdyE3jlGrzLgoYMKeD/SLmJok9pxRz3Gteu5cTtZh9g+4XA0z
 gPeDChkEBC8+64hV4VCOfeXK2HJNRnnceJG0rpKF9kq5K/FFDM6GqOPc6XJJ/9xlq4eaL0Njb8
 U3c6dYGyeykWQtUx4H3CJAo5acH6k0Ujtsw/1KbBYrwq6JuPTnx8x+lyEWm40MkL3dkS6EWgKt
 o50=
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 04/16] x86/xen: hypercall support for
 xenhost_t
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
CC:     <sstabellini@kernel.org>, <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        <pbonzini@redhat.com>, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
References: <20190509172540.12398-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <20190509172540.12398-5-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
 <11f8b620-11ac-7075-019a-30d6bad7583c@citrix.com>
 <fbfc0a0c-3707-7f17-9f2a-6c9d2c7b05b1@oracle.com>
 <59f7cc19-cd9b-119a-1715-50a947cd995d@suse.com>
From:   Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 mQINBFLhNn8BEADVhE+Hb8i0GV6mihnnr/uiQQdPF8kUoFzCOPXkf7jQ5sLYeJa0cQi6Penp
 VtiFYznTairnVsN5J+ujSTIb+OlMSJUWV4opS7WVNnxHbFTPYZVQ3erv7NKc2iVizCRZ2Kxn
 srM1oPXWRic8BIAdYOKOloF2300SL/bIpeD+x7h3w9B/qez7nOin5NzkxgFoaUeIal12pXSR
 Q354FKFoy6Vh96gc4VRqte3jw8mPuJQpfws+Pb+swvSf/i1q1+1I4jsRQQh2m6OTADHIqg2E
 ofTYAEh7R5HfPx0EXoEDMdRjOeKn8+vvkAwhviWXTHlG3R1QkbE5M/oywnZ83udJmi+lxjJ5
 YhQ5IzomvJ16H0Bq+TLyVLO/VRksp1VR9HxCzItLNCS8PdpYYz5TC204ViycobYU65WMpzWe
 LFAGn8jSS25XIpqv0Y9k87dLbctKKA14Ifw2kq5OIVu2FuX+3i446JOa2vpCI9GcjCzi3oHV
 e00bzYiHMIl0FICrNJU0Kjho8pdo0m2uxkn6SYEpogAy9pnatUlO+erL4LqFUO7GXSdBRbw5
 gNt25XTLdSFuZtMxkY3tq8MFss5QnjhehCVPEpE6y9ZjI4XB8ad1G4oBHVGK5LMsvg22PfMJ
 ISWFSHoF/B5+lHkCKWkFxZ0gZn33ju5n6/FOdEx4B8cMJt+cWwARAQABtClBbmRyZXcgQ29v
 cGVyIDxhbmRyZXcuY29vcGVyM0BjaXRyaXguY29tPokCOgQTAQgAJAIbAwULCQgHAwUVCgkI
 CwUWAgMBAAIeAQIXgAUCWKD95wIZAQAKCRBlw/kGpdefoHbdD/9AIoR3k6fKl+RFiFpyAhvO
 59ttDFI7nIAnlYngev2XUR3acFElJATHSDO0ju+hqWqAb8kVijXLops0gOfqt3VPZq9cuHlh
 IMDquatGLzAadfFx2eQYIYT+FYuMoPZy/aTUazmJIDVxP7L383grjIkn+7tAv+qeDfE+txL4
 SAm1UHNvmdfgL2/lcmL3xRh7sub3nJilM93RWX1Pe5LBSDXO45uzCGEdst6uSlzYR/MEr+5Z
 JQQ32JV64zwvf/aKaagSQSQMYNX9JFgfZ3TKWC1KJQbX5ssoX/5hNLqxMcZV3TN7kU8I3kjK
 mPec9+1nECOjjJSO/h4P0sBZyIUGfguwzhEeGf4sMCuSEM4xjCnwiBwftR17sr0spYcOpqET
 ZGcAmyYcNjy6CYadNCnfR40vhhWuCfNCBzWnUW0lFoo12wb0YnzoOLjvfD6OL3JjIUJNOmJy
 RCsJ5IA/Iz33RhSVRmROu+TztwuThClw63g7+hoyewv7BemKyuU6FTVhjjW+XUWmS/FzknSi
 dAG+insr0746cTPpSkGl3KAXeWDGJzve7/SBBfyznWCMGaf8E2P1oOdIZRxHgWj0zNr1+ooF
 /PzgLPiCI4OMUttTlEKChgbUTQ+5o0P080JojqfXwbPAyumbaYcQNiH1/xYbJdOFSiBv9rpt
 TQTBLzDKXok86LkCDQRS4TZ/ARAAkgqudHsp+hd82UVkvgnlqZjzz2vyrYfz7bkPtXaGb9H4
 Rfo7mQsEQavEBdWWjbga6eMnDqtu+FC+qeTGYebToxEyp2lKDSoAsvt8w82tIlP/EbmRbDVn
 7bhjBlfRcFjVYw8uVDPptT0TV47vpoCVkTwcyb6OltJrvg/QzV9f07DJswuda1JH3/qvYu0p
 vjPnYvCq4NsqY2XSdAJ02HrdYPFtNyPEntu1n1KK+gJrstjtw7KsZ4ygXYrsm/oCBiVW/OgU
 g/XIlGErkrxe4vQvJyVwg6YH653YTX5hLLUEL1NS4TCo47RP+wi6y+TnuAL36UtK/uFyEuPy
 wwrDVcC4cIFhYSfsO0BumEI65yu7a8aHbGfq2lW251UcoU48Z27ZUUZd2Dr6O/n8poQHbaTd
 6bJJSjzGGHZVbRP9UQ3lkmkmc0+XCHmj5WhwNNYjgbbmML7y0fsJT5RgvefAIFfHBg7fTY/i
 kBEimoUsTEQz+N4hbKwo1hULfVxDJStE4sbPhjbsPCrlXf6W9CxSyQ0qmZ2bXsLQYRj2xqd1
 bpA+1o1j2N4/au1R/uSiUFjewJdT/LX1EklKDcQwpk06Af/N7VZtSfEJeRV04unbsKVXWZAk
 uAJyDDKN99ziC0Wz5kcPyVD1HNf8bgaqGDzrv3TfYjwqayRFcMf7xJaL9xXedMcAEQEAAYkC
 HwQYAQgACQUCUuE2fwIbDAAKCRBlw/kGpdefoG4XEACD1Qf/er8EA7g23HMxYWd3FXHThrVQ
 HgiGdk5Yh632vjOm9L4sd/GCEACVQKjsu98e8o3ysitFlznEns5EAAXEbITrgKWXDDUWGYxd
 pnjj2u+GkVdsOAGk0kxczX6s+VRBhpbBI2PWnOsRJgU2n10PZ3mZD4Xu9kU2IXYmuW+e5KCA
 vTArRUdCrAtIa1k01sPipPPw6dfxx2e5asy21YOytzxuWFfJTGnVxZZSCyLUO83sh6OZhJkk
 b9rxL9wPmpN/t2IPaEKoAc0FTQZS36wAMOXkBh24PQ9gaLJvfPKpNzGD8XWR5HHF0NLIJhgg
 4ZlEXQ2fVp3XrtocHqhu4UZR4koCijgB8sB7Tb0GCpwK+C4UePdFLfhKyRdSXuvY3AHJd4CP
 4JzW0Bzq/WXY3XMOzUTYApGQpnUpdOmuQSfpV9MQO+/jo7r6yPbxT7CwRS5dcQPzUiuHLK9i
 nvjREdh84qycnx0/6dDroYhp0DFv4udxuAvt1h4wGwTPRQZerSm4xaYegEFusyhbZrI0U9tJ
 B8WrhBLXDiYlyJT6zOV2yZFuW47VrLsjYnHwn27hmxTC/7tvG3euCklmkn9Sl9IAKFu29RSo
 d5bD8kMSCYsTqtTfT6W4A3qHGvIDta3ptLYpIAOD2sY3GYq2nf3Bbzx81wZK14JdDDHUX2Rs
 6+ahAA==
Message-ID: <2d097a0d-a538-86ec-060b-492629a86bc3@citrix.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:00:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <59f7cc19-cd9b-119a-1715-50a947cd995d@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 14/06/2019 08:35, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 14.06.19 09:20, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> On 2019-06-12 2:15 p.m., Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 09/05/2019 18:25, Ankur Arora wrote:
>>>> Allow for different hypercall implementations for different xenhost
>>>> types.
>>>> Nested xenhost, which has two underlying xenhosts, can use both
>>>> simultaneously.
>>>>
>>>> The hypercall macros (HYPERVISOR_*) implicitly use the default
>>>> xenhost.x
>>>> A new macro (hypervisor_*) takes xenhost_t * as a parameter and
>>>> does the
>>>> right thing.
>>>>
>>>> TODO:
>>>>    - Multicalls for now assume the default xenhost
>>>>    - xen_hypercall_* symbols are only generated for the default
>>>> xenhost.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
>>>
>>> Again, what is the hypervisor nesting and/or guest layout here?
>> Two hypervisors, L0 and L1, and the guest is a child of the L1
>> hypervisor but could have PV devices attached to both L0 and L1
>> hypervisors.
>>
>>>
>>> I can't think of any case where a single piece of software can
>>> legitimately have two hypercall pages, because if it has one working
>>> one, it is by definition a guest, and therefore not privileged
>>> enough to
>>> use the outer one.
>> Depending on which hypercall page is used, the hypercall would
>> (eventually) land in the corresponding hypervisor.
>>
>> Juergen elsewhere pointed out proxying hypercalls is a better approach,
>> so I'm not really considering this any more but, given this layout, and
>> assuming that the hypercall pages could be encoded differently would it
>> still not work?
>
> Hypercalls might work, but it is a bad idea and a violation of layering
> to let a L1 guest issue hypercalls to L0 hypervisor, as those hypercalls
> could influence other L1 guests and even the L1 hypervisor.
>
> Hmm, thinking more about it, I even doubt those hypercalls could work in
> all cases: when issued from a L1 PV guest the hypercalls would seem to
> be issued from user mode for the L0 hypervisor, and this is not allowed.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

If L2 is an HVM guest, then both its hypercall pages will be using
VMCALL/VMMCALL which will end up making hypercalls to L1, rather than
having one go to L0.

If L2 is a PV guest, then one hypercall page will be SYSCALL/INT 82
which will go to L1, and one will be VMCALL/VMMCALL which goes to L0,
but L0 will see it from ring1/ring3 and reject the hypercall.

However you nest the system, every guest only has a single occurrence of
"supervisor software", so only has a single context that will be
tolerated to make hypercalls by the next hypervisor up.

~Andrew