On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:45 PM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopher...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Write the desired L2 CR3 into vmcs02.GUEST_CR3 during nested VM-Enter
> instead of deferring the VMWRITE until vmx_set_cr3(). If the VMWRITE
> is deferred, then KVM can consume a stale vmcs02.GUEST_CR3 when it
> refreshes vmcs12->guest_cr3 during nested_vmx_vmexit() if the emulated
> VM-Exit occurs without actually entering L2, e.g. if the nested run
> is squashed because nested VM-Enter (from L1) is putting L2 into HLT.
>
> Note, the above scenario can occur regardless of whether L1 is
> intercepting HLT, e.g. L1 can intercept HLT and then re-enter L2 with
> vmcs.GUEST_ACTIVITY_STATE=HALTED. But practically speaking, a VMM will
> likely put a guest into HALTED if and only if it's not intercepting HLT.
>
> In an ideal world where EPT *requires* unrestricted guest (and vice
> versa), VMX could handle CR3 similar to how it handles RSP and RIP,
> e.g. mark CR3 dirty and conditionally load it at vmx_vcpu_run(). But
> the unrestricted guest silliness complicates the dirty tracking logic
> to the point that explicitly handling vmcs02.GUEST_CR3 during nested
> VM-Enter is a simpler overall implementation.
>
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> Reported-and-tested-by: Reto Buerki <r...@codelabs.ch>
> Tested-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Liran Alon <liran.a...@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopher...@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jim Mattson <jmatt...@google.com>
