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;
Date:   Thu, 14 Jan 2021 09:19:40 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Cc:     Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>, Wei Huang <wei.huang2@amd.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, joro@8bytes.org,
        bp@alien8.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org,
        jmattson@google.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, dgilbert@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: Add emulation support for #GP triggered by
 VM instructions
Message-ID: <YAB9LIIVg8iEfXsb@google.com>
References: <20210112063703.539893-1-wei.huang2@amd.com>
 <X/37QBMHxH8otaMa@google.com>
 <jpgsg76kjsm.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy>
 <db574a30f50a2f556dc983f18f78f28c933fdac7.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <db574a30f50a2f556dc983f18f78f28c933fdac7.camel@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 15:00 -0500, Bandan Das wrote:
> > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> writes:
> > ...
> > > > -	if ((emulation_type & EMULTYPE_VMWARE_GP) &&
> > > > -	    !is_vmware_backdoor_opcode(ctxt)) {
> > > > -		kvm_queue_exception_e(vcpu, GP_VECTOR, 0);
> > > > -		return 1;
> > > > +	if (emulation_type & EMULTYPE_PARAVIRT_GP) {
> > > > +		vminstr = is_vm_instr_opcode(ctxt);
> > > > +		if (!vminstr && !is_vmware_backdoor_opcode(ctxt)) {
> > > > +			kvm_queue_exception_e(vcpu, GP_VECTOR, 0);
> > > > +			return 1;
> > > > +		}
> > > > +		if (vminstr)
> > > > +			return vminstr;
> > > 
> > > I'm pretty sure this doesn't correctly handle a VM-instr in L2 that hits a bad
> > > L0 GPA and that L1 wants to intercept.  The intercept bitmap isn't checked until
> > > x86_emulate_insn(), and the vm*_interception() helpers expect nested VM-Exits to
> > > be handled further up the stack.
> 
> Actually IMHO this exactly what we want. We want L0 to always intercept
> these #GPs, and hide them from the guest.
> 
> What we do need to do (and I prepared and attached a patch for that, is that
> if we run a guest, we want to inject corresponding vmexit (like
> SVM_EXIT_VMRUN) instead of emulating the instruction.

Yes, lack of forwarding to L1 as a nested exit is what I meant by "doesn't
correctly handle".