From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
To: Jon Kohler <jon@nutanix.com>
Cc: <seanjc@google.com>, <pbonzini@redhat.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>,
<mingo@redhat.com>, <bp@alien8.de>, <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
<x86@kernel.org>, <hpa@zytor.com>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Sergey Dyasli <sergey.dyasli@nutanix.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 12/18] KVM: x86/mmu: Introduce shadow_ux_mask
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 11:06:42 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aAhZQh3FVq3TD7pJ@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250313203702.575156-13-jon@nutanix.com>
>@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ u64 __read_mostly shadow_host_writable_mask;
> u64 __read_mostly shadow_mmu_writable_mask;
> u64 __read_mostly shadow_nx_mask;
> u64 __read_mostly shadow_x_mask; /* mutual exclusive with nx_mask */
>+u64 __read_mostly shadow_ux_mask;
> u64 __read_mostly shadow_user_mask;
> u64 __read_mostly shadow_accessed_mask;
> u64 __read_mostly shadow_dirty_mask;
>@@ -313,8 +314,14 @@ u64 make_huge_page_split_spte(struct kvm *kvm, u64 huge_spte,
> * the page executable as the NX hugepage mitigation no longer
> * applies.
> */
>- if ((role.access & ACC_EXEC_MASK) && is_nx_huge_page_enabled(kvm))
>+ if ((role.access & ACC_EXEC_MASK) && is_nx_huge_page_enabled(kvm)) {
is it possible that role.access has ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK set but not ACC_EXEC_MASK?
if so, this condition should be:
if ((role.access & (ACC_EXEC_MASK | ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK)) &&
is_nx_huge_page_enabled(kvm)) {
> child_spte = make_spte_executable(child_spte);
>+ // TODO: For LKML: switch to vcpu->arch.pt_guest_exec_control? up
>+ // for suggestions on how best to toggle this.
>+ if (enable_pt_guest_exec_control &&
If enable_pt_guest_exec_control is 0, then shadow_ux_mask will also be 0. i.e.,
this check isn't needed.
>+ role.access & ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK)
>+ child_spte |= shadow_ux_mask;
MBEC can be tracked in the kvm_mmu_page_role, then you can do:
if (role.mbec_enabled && role.access & ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK)
child_spte |= shadow_ux_mask;
>+ }
> }
>
> return child_spte;
>@@ -326,7 +333,7 @@ u64 make_nonleaf_spte(u64 *child_pt, bool ad_disabled)
> u64 spte = SPTE_MMU_PRESENT_MASK;
>
> spte |= __pa(child_pt) | shadow_present_mask | PT_WRITABLE_MASK |
>- shadow_user_mask | shadow_x_mask | shadow_me_value;
>+ shadow_user_mask | shadow_x_mask | shadow_ux_mask | shadow_me_value;
>
> if (ad_disabled)
> spte |= SPTE_TDP_AD_DISABLED;
>@@ -420,7 +427,8 @@ void kvm_mmu_set_me_spte_mask(u64 me_value, u64 me_mask)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_mmu_set_me_spte_mask);
>
>-void kvm_mmu_set_ept_masks(bool has_ad_bits, bool has_exec_only)
>+void kvm_mmu_set_ept_masks(bool has_ad_bits, bool has_exec_only,
>+ bool has_guest_exec_ctrl)
> {
> shadow_user_mask = VMX_EPT_READABLE_MASK;
> shadow_accessed_mask = has_ad_bits ? VMX_EPT_ACCESS_BIT : 0ull;
>@@ -428,8 +436,14 @@ void kvm_mmu_set_ept_masks(bool has_ad_bits, bool has_exec_only)
> shadow_nx_mask = 0ull;
> shadow_x_mask = VMX_EPT_EXECUTABLE_MASK;
> /* VMX_EPT_SUPPRESS_VE_BIT is needed for W or X violation. */
>+ // For LKML Review:
>+ // Do we need to modify shadow_present_mask in the MBEC case?
> shadow_present_mask =
> (has_exec_only ? 0ull : VMX_EPT_READABLE_MASK) | VMX_EPT_SUPPRESS_VE_BIT;
No, the SDM requires that present EPT entries have the VMX_EPT_READABLE_MASK
set if execute only translation is not supported. (The VMX_EPT_SUPPRESS_VE_BIT
is for TDX).
MBEC does not change this requirement.
>+
>+ shadow_ux_mask =
>+ has_guest_exec_ctrl ? VMX_EPT_USER_EXECUTABLE_MASK : 0ull;
>+
> /*
> * EPT overrides the host MTRRs, and so KVM must program the desired
> * memtype directly into the SPTEs. Note, this mask is just the mask
>@@ -484,6 +498,7 @@ void kvm_mmu_reset_all_pte_masks(void)
> shadow_dirty_mask = PT_DIRTY_MASK;
> shadow_nx_mask = PT64_NX_MASK;
> shadow_x_mask = 0;
>+ shadow_ux_mask = 0;
> shadow_present_mask = PT_PRESENT_MASK;
>
> /*
>diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
>index d9e22133b6d0..dc2f0dc9c46e 100644
>--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
>+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h
>@@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ extern u64 __read_mostly shadow_mmu_writable_mask;
> extern u64 __read_mostly shadow_nx_mask;
> extern u64 __read_mostly shadow_x_mask; /* mutual exclusive with nx_mask */
> extern u64 __read_mostly shadow_user_mask;
>+extern u64 __read_mostly shadow_ux_mask;
> extern u64 __read_mostly shadow_accessed_mask;
> extern u64 __read_mostly shadow_dirty_mask;
> extern u64 __read_mostly shadow_mmio_value;
>diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>index 0aadfa924045..d16e3f170258 100644
>--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>@@ -8544,7 +8544,8 @@ __init int vmx_hardware_setup(void)
>
> if (enable_ept)
> kvm_mmu_set_ept_masks(enable_ept_ad_bits,
>- cpu_has_vmx_ept_execute_only());
>+ cpu_has_vmx_ept_execute_only(),
>+ enable_pt_guest_exec_control);
>
> /*
> * Setup shadow_me_value/shadow_me_mask to include MKTME KeyID
>--
>2.43.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-23 3:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-13 20:36 [RFC PATCH 00/18] KVM: VMX: Introduce Intel Mode-Based Execute Control (MBEC) Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 01/18] KVM: VMX: Remove EPT_VIOLATIONS_ACC_*_BIT defines Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 02/18] KVM: nVMX: Decouple EPT RWX bits from EPT Violation protection bits Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 03/18] KVM: x86: Add module parameter for Intel MBEC Jon Kohler
2025-05-12 18:08 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-13 2:18 ` Jon Kohler
2025-05-13 7:57 ` Shah, Amit
2025-12-23 4:15 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 04/18] KVM: VMX: add cpu_has_vmx_mbec helper Jon Kohler
2025-05-12 18:14 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-13 2:17 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 05/18] KVM: x86: Add pt_guest_exec_control to kvm_vcpu_arch Jon Kohler
2025-04-22 6:27 ` Chao Gao
2025-05-12 18:15 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-23 4:15 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 06/18] KVM: VMX: Wire up Intel MBEC enable/disable logic Jon Kohler
2025-04-22 7:06 ` Chao Gao
2025-05-12 18:23 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-13 2:16 ` Jon Kohler
2025-05-13 13:28 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-14 11:14 ` Shah, Amit
2025-05-14 12:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-06-16 9:27 ` Shah, Amit
2025-06-17 14:13 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-07-09 13:40 ` Shah, Amit
2025-12-23 4:15 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 07/18] KVM: VMX: Define VMX_EPT_USER_EXECUTABLE_MASK Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 08/18] KVM: x86/mmu: Remove SPTE_PERM_MASK Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 09/18] KVM: x86/mmu: Extend access bitfield in kvm_mmu_page_role Jon Kohler
2025-05-12 18:32 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-13 2:14 ` Jon Kohler
2025-12-23 4:15 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 10/18] KVM: VMX: Extend EPT Violation protection bits Jon Kohler
2025-05-12 18:37 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-23 4:15 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 11/18] KVM: VMX: Enhance EPT violation handler for PROT_USER_EXEC Jon Kohler
2025-05-12 18:54 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-23 4:15 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 12/18] KVM: x86/mmu: Introduce shadow_ux_mask Jon Kohler
2025-04-23 3:06 ` Chao Gao [this message]
2025-05-12 19:13 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-23 4:15 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 13/18] KVM: x86/mmu: Adjust SPTE_MMIO_ALLOWED_MASK to understand MBEC Jon Kohler
2025-04-23 5:37 ` Chao Gao
2025-05-12 19:37 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-13 2:11 ` Jon Kohler
2025-12-23 4:15 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 14/18] KVM: x86/mmu: Extend is_executable_pte " Jon Kohler
2025-04-23 6:16 ` Chao Gao
2025-05-12 21:16 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-13 2:09 ` Jon Kohler
2025-12-23 4:15 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 15/18] KVM: x86/mmu: Extend make_spte " Jon Kohler
2025-05-12 21:29 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-13 2:04 ` Jon Kohler
2025-05-13 17:54 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-23 4:15 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 16/18] KVM: nVMX: Setup Intel MBEC in nested secondary controls Jon Kohler
2025-05-12 21:32 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-12-23 4:15 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 17/18] KVM: VMX: Allow MBEC with EVMCS Jon Kohler
2025-05-12 21:35 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-13 2:01 ` Jon Kohler
2025-12-23 4:16 ` Jon Kohler
2025-03-13 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 18/18] KVM: x86: Enable module parameter for MBEC Jon Kohler
2025-04-15 9:29 ` [RFC PATCH 00/18] KVM: VMX: Introduce Intel Mode-Based Execute Control (MBEC) Mickaël Salaün
2025-04-15 14:43 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-12 15:26 ` Jon Kohler
2025-04-15 14:43 ` Jon Kohler
2025-04-16 15:44 ` Mickaël Salaün
2025-04-23 13:54 ` Adrian-Ken Rueegsegger
2025-05-12 15:26 ` Jon Kohler
2025-05-12 21:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-13 1:59 ` Jon Kohler
2025-12-23 4:17 ` Jon Kohler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aAhZQh3FVq3TD7pJ@intel.com \
--to=chao.gao@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jon@nutanix.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=sergey.dyasli@nutanix.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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®