From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Jon Kohler <jon@nutanix.com>
Cc: 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 15/18] KVM: x86/mmu: Extend make_spte to understand MBEC
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 14:29:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aCJoNvABQugU2rdZ@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250313203702.575156-16-jon@nutanix.com>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, Jon Kohler wrote:
> Extend make_spte to mask in and out bits depending on MBEC enablement.
Same complaints about the shortlog and changelog not saying anything useful.
>
> Note: For the RFC/v1 series, I've added several 'For Review' items that
> may require a bit deeper inspection, as well as some long winded
> comments/annotations. These will be cleaned up for the next iteration
> of the series after initial review.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jon Kohler <jon@nutanix.com>
> Co-developed-by: Sergey Dyasli <sergey.dyasli@nutanix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Dyasli <sergey.dyasli@nutanix.com>
>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h | 3 +++
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
> index a3a5cacda614..7675239f2dd1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
> @@ -840,6 +840,9 @@ static int FNAME(page_fault)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault
> * then we should prevent the kernel from executing it
> * if SMEP is enabled.
> */
> + // FOR REVIEW:
> + // ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK seems not necessary to add here since
> + // SMEP is for kernel-only.
> if (is_cr4_smep(vcpu->arch.mmu))
> walker.pte_access &= ~ACC_EXEC_MASK;
I would straight up WARN, because it should be impossible to reach this code with
ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK set. In fact, this entire blob of code should be #ifdef'd
out for PTTYPE_EPT. AFAICT, the only reason it doesn't break nEPT is because
its impossible to have a WRITE EPT violation without READ (a.k.a. USER) being
set.
> }
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
> index 6f4994b3e6d0..89bdae3f9ada 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
> @@ -178,6 +178,9 @@ bool make_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
> else if (kvm_mmu_page_ad_need_write_protect(sp))
> spte |= SPTE_TDP_AD_WRPROT_ONLY;
>
> + // For LKML Review:
> + // In MBEC case, you can have exec only and also bit 10
> + // set for user exec only. Do we need to cater for that here?
> spte |= shadow_present_mask;
> if (!prefetch)
> spte |= spte_shadow_accessed_mask(spte);
> @@ -197,12 +200,31 @@ bool make_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
> if (level > PG_LEVEL_4K && (pte_access & ACC_EXEC_MASK) &&
Needs to check ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK.
> is_nx_huge_page_enabled(vcpu->kvm)) {
> pte_access &= ~ACC_EXEC_MASK;
> + if (vcpu->arch.pt_guest_exec_control)
> + pte_access &= ~ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK;
> }
>
> - if (pte_access & ACC_EXEC_MASK)
> - spte |= shadow_x_mask;
> - else
> - spte |= shadow_nx_mask;
> + // For LKML Review:
> + // We could probably optimize the logic here, but typing it out
> + // long hand for now to make it clear how we're changing the control
> + // flow to support MBEC.
I appreciate the effort, but this did far more harm than good. Reviewing code
that has zero chance of being the end product is a waste of time. And unless I'm
overlooking a subtlety, you're making this way harder than it needs to be:
if (pte_access & (ACC_EXEC_MASK | ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK)) {
if (pte_access & ACC_EXEC_MASK)
spte |= shadow_x_mask;
if (pte_access & ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK)
spte |= shadow_ux_mask;
} else {
spte |= shadow_nx_mask;
}
KVM needs to ensure ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK isn't spuriously set, but KVM should be
doing that anyways.
> + if (!vcpu->arch.pt_guest_exec_control) { // non-mbec logic
> + if (pte_access & ACC_EXEC_MASK)
> + spte |= shadow_x_mask;
> + else
> + spte |= shadow_nx_mask;
> + } else { // mbec logic
> + if (pte_access & ACC_EXEC_MASK) { /* mbec: kernel exec */
> + if (pte_access & ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK)
> + spte |= shadow_x_mask | shadow_ux_mask; // KMX = 1, UMX = 1
> + else
> + spte |= shadow_x_mask; // KMX = 1, UMX = 0
> + } else if (pte_access & ACC_USER_EXEC_MASK) { /* mbec: user exec, no kernel exec */
> + spte |= shadow_ux_mask; // KMX = 0, UMX = 1
> + } else { /* mbec: nx */
> + spte |= shadow_nx_mask; // KMX = 0, UMX = 0
> + }
> + }
>
> if (pte_access & ACC_USER_MASK)
> spte |= shadow_user_mask;
> --
> 2.43.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-12 21:29 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
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 [this message]
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=aCJoNvABQugU2rdZ@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.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=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®