Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: nVMX: postpone VMCS changes on MSR_IA32_APICBASE write

["Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>]

2016-08-15 13:19+0800, Wanpeng Li:
> 2016-08-12 19:39 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>:
>> 2016-08-12 18:14+0800, Wanpeng Li:
>>> 2016-08-12 17:44 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>:
>>>> 2016-08-12 14:07+0800, Wanpeng Li:
>>>>> 2016-08-09 2:16 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>:
>>>>>> If vmcs12 does not intercept APIC_BASE writes, then KVM will handle the
>>>>>> write with vmcs02 as the current VMCS.
>>>>>> This will incorrectly apply modifications intended for vmcs01 to vmcs02
>>>>>> and L2 can use it to gain access to L0's x2APIC registers by disabling
>>>>>> virtualized x2APIC while using msr bitmap that assumes enabled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Postpone execution of vmx_set_virtual_x2apic_mode until vmcs01 is the
>>>>>> current VMCS.  An alternative solution would temporarily make vmcs01 the
>>>>>> current VMCS, but it requires more care.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a scenario both L1 and L2 are running on x2apic mode, L1
>>>>> don't own the APIC_BASE writes, then L2 is intended to disable x2apic
>>>>> mode, however, your logic will also disable x2apic mode for L1.
>>>>
>>>> You mean a case where L1 does intercept APIC_BASE?
>>>>
>>>> That case is not affected, because it should cause a nested VM exit, so
>>>> vmx_set_virtual_x2apic_mode() won't be called in the first place.
>>>
>>> I mean L1 doesn't intercept APIC_BASE.
>>
>> Then L2's write to APIC_BASE should only affect L1.
>> L2 is buggy if it intended to disable its x2APIC with the write
>> or L1 set up intercepts incorrectly for the indented L2.
> 
> Do you mean OS disable x2APIC during its running is buggy?

Not in general, but if L1 doesn't intercept APIC_BASE and L2 writes to
it in order to disable its (L2's) x2APIC, then there is a bug in L2 or
L1.

If L1 intended to intercept, then it's a clear L1 bug, otherwise L2
should have known that L1 is a special hypervisor that doesn't intercept
APIC_BASE and the bug is on L2 side or on the user that ran unsuspecting
L2 on that L1.