From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Naveen N Rao <naveen@kernel.org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, Dmytro Maluka <dmaluka@chromium.org>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Clear AVIC Physical ID table entry if vCPU creation fails
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 12:08:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <arLSICws8RVdS-EA@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <arK6ygKGfbqga3ij@blrnaveerao1>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2026, Naveen N Rao wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:55:07AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2026, Naveen N Rao (AMD) wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c
> > > index 3b037e385523..bc2c699380b3 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c
> > > @@ -885,6 +885,16 @@ int avic_init_vcpu(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +void avic_vcpu_free(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 max_id = x2avic_enabled ? x2avic_max_physical_id : AVIC_MAX_PHYSICAL_ID;
> >
> > I don't love the duplicate (triplicate?) code, and looking at the usage in
> > avic_init_backing_page() with fresh eyes sketched me out. It's "fine", because
> > KVM will reject vCPU creation if vcpu_id >= kvm->arch.max_vcpu_ids, i.e. checking
> > only the architectural max won't exceed this max:
> >
> > return min(kvm->arch.max_vcpu_ids - 1, arch_max);
> >
> > But it's hard to see that, and I can't think of any reason why being paranoid
> > during vCPU creation/destruction would be a bad thing.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > Assuming it actually works (haven't tested yet), I'll send a v2 with a prep patch
> > to add:
> >
> > static bool avic_is_addressable_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > return (vcpu->vcpu_id * sizeof(u64)) <
> > PAGE_SIZE << avic_get_physical_id_table_order(vcpu->kvm);
> > }
>
> Unless you are planning to replace similar checks in __avic_vcpu_load()
> and __avic_vcpu_put(),
Heh, I had coded up exactly that (and then completely forgot that I was going to
send a v2, *sigh*).
> I think it will be simpler to just check the id
> itself and avoid dealing with the table size:
> return vcpu->vcpu_id <= __avic_get_max_physical_id(kvm, NULL);
>
> This helper can then also be used in avic_init_backing_page().
Eww, I missed that wrinkle. Keying off the table order could get a false negative
in avic_init_backing_page(), at least in theory.
What if we do both, sort of? Convert load/put, and add a sanity check in
avic_init_vmcb() as well?
diff --git arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c
index 3b037e385523..3725c033f8e9 100644
--- arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c
+++ arch/x86/kvm/svm/avic.c
@@ -395,6 +395,12 @@ static phys_addr_t avic_get_backing_page_address(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
return __sme_set(__pa(svm->vcpu.arch.apic->regs));
}
+static bool avic_is_addressable_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+ return (vcpu->vcpu_id * sizeof(u64)) <
+ PAGE_SIZE << avic_get_physical_id_table_order(vcpu->kvm);
+}
+
void avic_init_vmcb(struct vcpu_svm *svm, struct vmcb *vmcb)
{
struct kvm_svm *kvm_svm = to_kvm_svm(svm->vcpu.kvm);
@@ -425,7 +431,7 @@ static int avic_init_backing_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
* avic_vcpu_load() expects to be called if and only if the vCPU has
* fully initialized AVIC.
*/
- if (id > max_id) {
+ if (id > max_id || WARN_ON_ONCE(!avic_is_addressable_vcpu(vcpu))) {
kvm_set_apicv_inhibit(vcpu->kvm, APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_PHYSICAL_ID_TOO_BIG);
vcpu->arch.apic->apicv_active = false;
return 0;
@@ -1045,8 +1051,7 @@ static void __avic_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu,
if (WARN_ON(h_physical_id & ~AVIC_PHYSICAL_ID_ENTRY_HOST_PHYSICAL_ID_MASK))
return;
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vcpu->vcpu_id * sizeof(entry) >=
- PAGE_SIZE << avic_get_physical_id_table_order(vcpu->kvm)))
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!avic_is_addressable_vcpu(vcpu)))
return;
/*
@@ -1108,8 +1113,7 @@ static void __avic_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, enum avic_vcpu_action action)
lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vcpu->vcpu_id * sizeof(entry) >=
- PAGE_SIZE << avic_get_physical_id_table_order(vcpu->kvm)))
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!avic_is_addressable_vcpu(vcpu)))
return;
/*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-22 19:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-03 6:28 [PATCH] KVM: SVM: Clear AVIC Physical ID table entry if vCPU creation fails Naveen N Rao (AMD)
2026-09-09 3:09 ` Atish Patra
2026-09-11 18:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-22 18:19 ` Naveen N Rao
2026-09-22 19:08 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2026-09-22 19:36 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-22 20:43 ` Naveen N Rao
2026-09-22 23:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-22 19:37 ` Naveen N Rao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=arLSICws8RVdS-EA@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=dmaluka@chromium.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=naveen@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox