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: <4c6deb603ba5b9fbc7e7c30d429190ed5517e97b.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] KVM: x86: emulator: introduce
 update_emulation_mode
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 14:52:21 +0300
In-Reply-To: <YtiTeZQ/n0LPTV/W@google.com>
References: <20220621150902.46126-1-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
         <20220621150902.46126-3-mlevitsk@redhat.com> <YtiTeZQ/n0LPTV/W@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5 (3.36.5-2.fc32) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2022-07-20 at 23:44 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > +static inline int update_emulation_mode(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt)
> 
> Maybe emulator_recalc_and_set_mode()?  It took me a second to understand that
> "update" also involves determining the "new" mode, e.g. I was trying to figure
> out where @mode was :-)

I don't mind at all, will update in v3.

> 
> > +{
> > +	u64 efer;
> > +	struct desc_struct cs;
> > +	u16 selector;
> > +	u32 base3;
> > +
> > +	ctxt->ops->get_msr(ctxt, MSR_EFER, &efer);
> > +
> > +	if (!ctxt->ops->get_cr(ctxt, 0) & X86_CR0_PE) {
> > +		/* Real mode. cpu must not have long mode active */
> > +		if (efer & EFER_LMA)
> > +			return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE;
> 
> If we hit this, is there any hope of X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE doing the right thing?
> Ah, SMM and the ability to swizzle SMRAM state.  Bummer.  I was hoping we could
> just bug the VM.

I just tried to be a good citizen here, it is probably impossible to hit this case.
(RSM ignores LMA bit in the EFER in the SMRAM).

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky


> 
> > +		ctxt->mode = X86EMUL_MODE_REAL;
> > +		return X86EMUL_CONTINUE;
> > +	}