Re: Nested SVM and migration

Avi Kivity
2010-02-21T08:12:39Z

On 02/21/2010 09:46 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 09:23:40AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 02/20/2010 10:18 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Actually, looking deeper, there doesn't even appear to be any way to
>>>> export the nested CPU data at all, meaning basic features like
>>>> suspending and restoring the VM are not possible. Is there any plan to
>>>> make it work in the near future? I'm not complaining; if my
>>>> understanding is correct, this actually makes my current task easier.
>>>>
>>> I think we should introduce a flag to indicate userspace if a vcpu is in
>>> a state that could be migrated in a save way together with a way for
>>> userspace to request that the vcpu enters a migratable state. In the
>>> kernel we could do something like that:
>>>
>>> nested_svm_vmrun(...)
>>> {
>>> /* ... */
>>> kvm_migration_disable(vcpu);
>>> /* ... */
>>> }
>>>
>>> nested_svm_vmexit(...)
>>> {
>>> /* ... */
>>> kvm_migration_enable(vcpu);
>>> /* ... */
>>> }
>>>
>>> and somewhere in the vcpu_run loop:
>>>
>>> if (vcpu->arch.migration_win_req)
>>> nested_svm_vmexit(INTR);
>>>
>>> This might be helpful in other situations too. Thoughts?
>>>
>> This doesn't work if the guest disables INTR intercepts, or if the
>> guest checks that an interrupt was actually received. Of course no
>> sane guest does this.
>>
>>
> Malicious guest may do this on purpose just to prevent migration.
>

We #vmexit unconditionally; the malicious guest will break if it doesn't
handle INTR intercepts even when it did not enable them, but migration
will succeed.

> Relying on vcpu state controllable by a guest for migration is not a
> good idea.
>

I agree, but that is not the case here. Regardless, I'd prefer to
migrate the guest in its original state (and not force a #vmexit), so
long as it isn't horribly complicated.

--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.