Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <cd348e77-cb40-a64c-6b82-24e9a9158946@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Date:   Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:30:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220402010903.727604-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20220402010903.727604-6-seanjc@google.com>
 <a47217da0b6db4f1b6b6c69a9dc38350b13ac17c.camel@redhat.com>
 <YkshgrUaF4+MrrXf@google.com>
 <7caee33a-da0f-00be-3195-82c3d1cd4cb4@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <YkzxXw1Aznv4zX0a@google.com>
 <eed1cea4-409a-f03e-5c31-e82d49bb2101@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <Yk3Jd6xAfgVoFgLc@google.com>
 <5135b502-ce2e-babb-7812-4d4c431a5252@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <Yk3uh6f+0nOdybd3@google.com>
From:   "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] KVM: SVM: Re-inject INT3/INTO instead of retrying the
 instruction
In-Reply-To: <Yk3uh6f+0nOdybd3@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6.04.2022 21:48, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2022, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> On 6.04.2022 19:10, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2022, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> And what if it's L0 that is trying to inject a NMI into L2?
>> In this case is_guest_mode() is true, but the full NMI injection machinery
>> should be used.
> 
> Gah, you're right, I got misled by a benign bug in nested_vmx_l1_wants_exit() and
> was thinking that NMIs always exit.  The "L1 wants" part should be conditioned on
> NMI exiting being enabled.  It's benign because KVM always wants "real" NMIs, and
> so the path is never encountered.
> 
> @@ -5980,7 +6005,7 @@ static bool nested_vmx_l1_wants_exit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>          switch ((u16)exit_reason.basic) {
>          case EXIT_REASON_EXCEPTION_NMI:
>                  intr_info = vmx_get_intr_info(vcpu);
> -               if (is_nmi(intr_info))
> +               if (is_nmi(intr_info) && nested_cpu_has_nmi_exiting(vmcs12))
>                          return true;
>                  else if (is_page_fault(intr_info))
>                          return true;
> 

I guess you mean "benign" when having KVM as L1, since other hypervisors may
let their L2s handle NMIs themselves.

>> It is also incorrect to block L1 -> L2 NMI injection because either L1
>> or L2 is currently under NMI blocking: the first case is obvious,
>> the second because it's L1 that is supposed to take care of proper NMI
>> blocking for L2 when injecting an NMI there.
> 
> Yep, but I don't think there's a bug here.  At least not for nVMX.

I agree this scenario should currently work (including on nSVM) - mentioned
it just as a constraint on solution space.

>>>> With the code in my previous patch set I planned to use
>>>> exit_during_event_injection() to detect such case, but if we implement
>>>> VMCB12 EVENTINJ parsing we can simply add a flag that the relevant event
>>>> comes from L1, so its normal injection side-effects should be skipped.
>>>
>>> Do we still need a flag based on the above?  Honest question... I've been staring
>>> at all this for the better part of an hour and may have lost track of things.
>>
>> If checking just is_guest_mode() is not enough due to reasons I described
>> above then we need to somehow determine in the NMI / IRQ injection handler
>> whether the event to be injected into L2 comes from L0 or L1.
>> For this (assuming we do VMCB12 EVENTINJ parsing) I think we need an extra flag.
> 
> Yes :-(  And I believe the extra flag would need to be handled by KVM_{G,S}ET_VCPU_EVENTS.
>

Another option for saving and restoring a VM would be to add it to
KVM_{GET,SET}_NESTED_STATE somewhere (maybe as a part of the saved VMCB12
control area?).

Thanks,
Maciej