On Wed, 2021-01-06 at 09:39 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > This should prevent bad things from happening if the user calls the
> > KVM_SET_NESTED_STATE twice.
>
> This doesn't exactly inspire confidence, nor does it provide much help to
> readers that don't already know why KVM should "leave nested" before
> processing
> the rest of kvm_state.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> > index c1a3d0e996add..3aa18016832d0 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> > @@ -1154,8 +1154,9 @@ static int svm_set_nested_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > if (is_smm(vcpu) && (kvm_state->flags & KVM_STATE_NESTED_GUEST_MODE))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > + svm_leave_nested(svm);
>
> nVMX sets a really bad example in that it does vmx_leave_nested(), and many
> other things, long before it has vetted the incoming state. That's not the
> end
> of the word as the caller is likely going to exit if this ioctl() fails, but
> it
> would be nice to avoid such behavior with nSVM, especially since it appears to
> be trivially easy to do svm_leave_nested() iff the ioctl() will succeed.
I agree with you. So if I understand correctly I should move the unconditional
svm_leave_nested(svm) after all the checks are done? I
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
>
> > +
> > if (!(kvm_state->flags & KVM_STATE_NESTED_GUEST_MODE)) {
> > - svm_leave_nested(svm);
> > svm_set_gif(svm, !!(kvm_state->flags &
> > KVM_STATE_NESTED_GIF_SET));
> > return 0;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.26.2
> >
