Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: nSVM: vmentry ignores EFER.LMA and possibly
 RFLAGS.VM
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
References: <20200709095525.907771-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <CALMp9eREY4e7kb22CxReNV83HwR7D_tBkn2i5LUbGLGe_yw5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <782fdf92-38f8-c081-9796-5344ab3050d5@redhat.com>
 <CALMp9eRSvdx+UHggLbvFPms3Li2KY-RjZhjGjcQ3=GbSB1YyyA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <717a1b5d-1bf3-5f72-147a-faccd4611b87@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 20:31:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eRSvdx+UHggLbvFPms3Li2KY-RjZhjGjcQ3=GbSB1YyyA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 09/07/20 20:28, Jim Mattson wrote:
>> That said, the VMCB here is guest memory and it can change under our
>> feet between nested_vmcb_checks and nested_prepare_vmcb_save.  Copying
>> the whole save area is overkill, but we probably should copy at least
>> EFER/CR0/CR3/CR4 in a struct at the beginning of nested_svm_vmrun; this
>> way there'd be no TOC/TOU issues between nested_vmcb_checks and
>> nested_svm_vmrun.  This would also make it easier to reuse the checks in
>> svm_set_nested_state.  Maybe Maxim can look at it while I'm on vacation,
>> as he's eager to do more nSVM stuff. :D
>
> I fear that nested SVM is rife with TOCTTOU issues.

I am pretty sure about that, actually. :)

Another possibility to stomp them in a more efficient manner could be to
rely on the dirty flags, and use them to set up an in-memory copy of the
VMCB.

Paolo