lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 3/3] nSVM: use svm->nested.save to load vmcb12 registers and avoid TOC/TOU races
From
Date


On 14/09/2021 11:12, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 12:02 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>> On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 10:20 +0200, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
>>> On 12/09/2021 12:42, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (!nested_vmcb_valid_sregs(vcpu, &vmcb12->save) ||
>>>>> + if (!nested_vmcb_valid_sregs(vcpu, &svm->nested.save) ||
>>>>> !nested_vmcb_check_controls(vcpu, &svm->nested.ctl)) {
>>>> If you use a different struct for the copied fields, then it makes
>>>> sense IMHO to drop the 'control' parameter from nested_vmcb_check_controls,
>>>> and just use the svm->nested.save there directly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, what you say in patch 2 makes sense to me. I can create a new struct
>>> vmcb_save_area_cached, but I need to keep nested.ctl because 1) it is
>>> used also elsewhere, and different fields from the one checked here are
>>> read/set and 2) using another structure (or the same
>>
>> Yes, keep nested.ctl, since vast majority of the fields are copied I think.
>
> But actually that you mention it, I'll say why not to create vmcb_control_area_cached
> as well indeed and change the type of svm->nested.save to it. (in a separate patch)
>
> I see what you mean that we modify it a bit (but we shoudn't to be honest) and such, but
> all of this can be fixed.

So basically you are proposing:

struct svm_nested_state {
...
struct vmcb_control_area ctl; // we need this because it is used
everywhere, I think
struct vmcb_control_area_cached ctl_cached;
struct vmcb_save_area_cached save_cached;
...
}

and then

if (!nested_vmcb_valid_sregs(vcpu, &svm->nested.save_cached) ||
!nested_vmcb_check_controls(vcpu, &svm->nested.ctl_cached)) {

like that?

Or do you want to delete nested.ctl completely and just keep the fields
actually used in ctl_cached?

Also, note that as I am trying to use vmcb_save_area_cached, it is worth
noticing that nested_vmcb_valid_sregs() is also used in
svm_set_nested_state(), so it requires some additional little changes.

Thank you,
Emanuele

>
> The advantage of having vmcb_control_area_cached is that it becomes impossible to use
> by mistake a non copied field from the guest.
>
> It would also emphasize that this stuff came from the guest and should be treated as
> a toxic waste.
>
> Note again that this should be done if we agree as a separate patch.
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Maxim Levitsky
>>
>>
>>> vmcb_save_area_cached) in its place would just duplicate the same fields
>>> of nested.ctl, creating even more confusion and possible inconsistency.
>>>
>>> Let me know if you disagree.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Emanuele
>>>
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-14 11:25    [W:0.066 / U:0.776 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site