* [PATCH v2 0/2] KVM: nVMX: eVMCS consistency check fixes
@ 2026-11-05 19:07 Sean Christopherson
2026-11-05 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: nVMX: Do eVMCS consistency check on secondary controls iff they're enable Sean Christopherson
2026-11-05 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: nVMX: Do eVMCS consistency check on VMFUNC " Sean Christopherson
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Sean Christopherson @ 2026-11-05 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov, Sean Christopherson, Paolo Bonzini
Cc: kvm, linux-kernel, Manuel Andreas
Fix two benign-for-real-guests bugs where KVM incorrectly performs eVMCS
consistency checks on VMCS fields that are supposed to be ignored.
v2: Properly guard the checks instead of simply deleting the WARN.
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/f1f39118-2e1b-476b-9a84-ef7d56412bdc@tum.de
Sean Christopherson (2):
KVM: nVMX: Do eVMCS consistency check on secondary controls iff
they're enable
KVM: nVMX: Do eVMCS consistency check on VMFUNC controls iff they're
enable
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/hyperv.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
base-commit: d21eef2084a9af87ac2a783bc7c2b175ba114e4e
--
2.56.0.567.gdb80ae8cd5-goog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: nVMX: Do eVMCS consistency check on secondary controls iff they're enable
2026-11-05 19:07 [PATCH v2 0/2] KVM: nVMX: eVMCS consistency check fixes Sean Christopherson
@ 2026-11-05 19:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-11-05 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: nVMX: Do eVMCS consistency check on VMFUNC " Sean Christopherson
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Sean Christopherson @ 2026-11-05 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov, Sean Christopherson, Paolo Bonzini
Cc: kvm, linux-kernel, Manuel Andreas
Check that the secondary execution controls are actually enabled before
performing eVMCS-specific consistency checks, as the secondary controls are
supposed to be completely ignored if they're not enabled. Per the SDM:
If the "activate secondary controls" primary processor-based VM-execution
control is 0 (or if the processor does not support the 1-setting of that
control), no checks are performed on the secondary processor-based
VM-execution controls. The logical processor operates as if all the
secondary processor-based VM-execution controls were 0.
Fixes: a83502314ce3 ("x86/kvm/hyper-v: don't allow to turn on unsupported VMX controls for nested guests")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
---
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/hyperv.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/hyperv.c
index fa41d036acd4..2b40ac32ff06 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/hyperv.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/hyperv.c
@@ -169,7 +169,8 @@ int nested_evmcs_check_controls(struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
vmcs12->cpu_based_vm_exec_control)))
return -EINVAL;
- if (CC(!nested_evmcs_is_valid_controls(EVMCS_2NDEXEC,
+ if (nested_cpu_has(vmcs12, CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_SECONDARY_CONTROLS) &&
+ CC(!nested_evmcs_is_valid_controls(EVMCS_2NDEXEC,
vmcs12->secondary_vm_exec_control)))
return -EINVAL;
--
2.56.0.567.gdb80ae8cd5-goog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: nVMX: Do eVMCS consistency check on VMFUNC controls iff they're enable
2026-11-05 19:07 [PATCH v2 0/2] KVM: nVMX: eVMCS consistency check fixes Sean Christopherson
2026-11-05 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: nVMX: Do eVMCS consistency check on secondary controls iff they're enable Sean Christopherson
@ 2026-11-05 19:07 ` Sean Christopherson
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Sean Christopherson @ 2026-11-05 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov, Sean Christopherson, Paolo Bonzini
Cc: kvm, linux-kernel, Manuel Andreas
Check that the VM-function controls are actually enabled before performing
eVMCS-specific consistency checks, as the VMFUNC controls are supposed to
be completely ignored if they're not enabled. Per the SDM:
If the "enable VM functions" processor-based VM-execution control is 0,
no checks are performed on the VM-function controls.
Fixes: 3ff8a13d41b2 ("KVM: nVMX: WARN once and fail VM-Enter if eVMCS sees VMFUNC[63:32] != 0")
Fixes: a83502314ce3 ("x86/kvm/hyper-v: don't allow to turn on unsupported VMX controls for nested guests")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Manuel Andreas <manuel.andreas@tum.de>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/f1f39118-2e1b-476b-9a84-ef7d56412bdc@tum.de
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
---
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/hyperv.c | 9 ++++-----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/hyperv.c
index 2b40ac32ff06..a1daf8f2ec5a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/hyperv.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/hyperv.c
@@ -187,11 +187,10 @@ int nested_evmcs_check_controls(struct vmcs12 *vmcs12)
* controls in bits 63:32, i.e. dropping those bits on the consistency
* check is intentional.
*/
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vmcs12->vm_function_control >> 32))
- return -EINVAL;
-
- if (CC(!nested_evmcs_is_valid_controls(EVMCS_VMFUNC,
- vmcs12->vm_function_control)))
+ if (nested_cpu_has_vmfunc(vmcs12) &&
+ (WARN_ON_ONCE(vmcs12->vm_function_control >> 32) ||
+ CC(!nested_evmcs_is_valid_controls(EVMCS_VMFUNC,
+ vmcs12->vm_function_control))))
return -EINVAL;
return 0;
--
2.56.0.567.gdb80ae8cd5-goog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-11-05 19:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-11-05 19:07 [PATCH v2 0/2] KVM: nVMX: eVMCS consistency check fixes Sean Christopherson
2026-11-05 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: nVMX: Do eVMCS consistency check on secondary controls iff they're enable Sean Christopherson
2026-11-05 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: nVMX: Do eVMCS consistency check on VMFUNC " Sean Christopherson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®