Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] KVM: nVMX: Introduce nested_evmcs_is_used()

Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-05-27T07:54:32Z

Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2021-05-24 at 14:35 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2021-05-17 at 15:50 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> > > Unlike regular set_current_vmptr(), nested_vmx_handle_enlightened_vmptrld()
>> > > can not be called directly from vmx_set_nested_state() as KVM may not have
>> > > all the information yet (e.g. HV_X64_MSR_VP_ASSIST_PAGE MSR may not be
>> > > restored yet). Enlightened VMCS is mapped later while getting nested state
>> > > pages. In the meantime, vmx->nested.hv_evmcs remains NULL and using it
>> > > for various checks is incorrect. In particular, if KVM_GET_NESTED_STATE is
>> > > called right after KVM_SET_NESTED_STATE, KVM_STATE_NESTED_EVMCS flag in the
>> > > resulting state will be unset (and such state will later fail to load).
>> > >
>> > > Introduce nested_evmcs_is_used() and use 'is_guest_mode(vcpu) &&
>> > > vmx->nested.current_vmptr == -1ull' check to detect not-yet-mapped eVMCS
>> > > after restore.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
>> > > ---
>> > > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
>> > > index 6058a65a6ede..3080e00c8f90 100644
>> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
>> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
>> > > @@ -141,6 +141,27 @@ static void init_vmcs_shadow_fields(void)
>> > > max_shadow_read_write_fields = j;
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > +static inline bool nested_evmcs_is_used(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
>> > > +{
>> > > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = &vmx->vcpu;
>> > > +
>> > > + if (vmx->nested.hv_evmcs)
>> > > + return true;
>> > > +
>> > > + /*
>> > > + * After KVM_SET_NESTED_STATE, enlightened VMCS is mapped during
>> > > + * KVM_REQ_GET_NESTED_STATE_PAGES handling and until the request is
>> > > + * processed vmx->nested.hv_evmcs is NULL. It is, however, possible to
>> > > + * detect such state by checking 'nested.current_vmptr == -1ull' when
>> > > + * vCPU is in guest mode, it is only possible with eVMCS.
>> > > + */
>> > > + if (unlikely(vmx->nested.enlightened_vmcs_enabled && is_guest_mode(vcpu) &&
>> > > + (vmx->nested.current_vmptr == -1ull)))
>> > > + return true;
>> > > +
>> > > + return false;
>> > > +}
>> >
>> > I think that this is a valid way to solve the issue,
>> > but it feels like there might be a better way.
>> > I don't mind though to accept this patch as is.
>> >
>> > So here are my 2 cents about this:
>> >
>> > First of all after studying how evmcs works I take my words back
>> > about needing to migrate its contents.
>> >
>> > It is indeed enough to migrate its physical address,
>> > or maybe even just a flag that evmcs is loaded
>> > (and to my surprise we already do this - KVM_STATE_NESTED_EVMCS)
>> >
>> > So how about just having a boolean flag that indicates that evmcs is in use,
>> > but doesn't imply that we know its address or that it is mapped
>> > to host address space, something like 'vmx->nested.enlightened_vmcs_loaded'
>> >
>> > On migration that flag saved and restored as the KVM_STATE_NESTED_EVMCS,
>> > otherwise it set when we load an evmcs and cleared when it is released.
>> >
>> > Then as far as I can see we can use this flag in nested_evmcs_is_used
>> > since all its callers don't touch evmcs, thus don't need it to be
>> > mapped.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>
>
>
>> >
>>
>> First, we need to be compatible with older KVMs which don't have the
>> flag and this is problematic: currently, we always expect vmcs12 to
>> carry valid contents. This is challenging.
>
> All right, I understand this can be an issue!
>
> If the userspace doesn't set the KVM_STATE_NESTED_EVMCS
> but has a valid EVMCS as later indicated enabling it in the HV
> assist page, we can just use the logic that this patch uses but use it
> to set vmx->nested.enlightened_vmcs_loaded flag or whatever
> we decide to name it.
> Later we can even deprecate and disable this with a new KVM cap.
>
>
> BTW, I like Paolo's idea of putting this flag into the evmcs_gpa,
> like that
>
> -1 no evmcs
> 0 - evmcs enabled but its gpa not known
> anything else - valid gpa.
>
>
> Also as I said, I am not against this patch either,
> I am just thinking maybe we can make it a bit better.
>

v3 implements a similar idea (I kept Paolo's 'Suggested-by' though :-)
we set hv_evmcs_vmptr to EVMPTR_MAP_PENDING after migration. I haven't
tried it yet but I thin we can eventually drop
KVM_REQ_GET_NESTED_STATE_PAGES usage.

For now, this series is a bugfix (multiple bugfixes, actually) so I'd
like to get in and not try to make everything perfect regarding eVMCS
:-) I'll certainly take a look at other possible improvements later.

>
>>
>> Second, vCPU can be migrated in three different states:
>> 1) While L2 was running ('true' nested state is in VMCS02)
>> 2) While L1 was running ('true' nested state is in eVMCS)
>> 3) Right after an exit from L2 to L1 was forced
>> ('need_vmcs12_to_shadow_sync = true') ('true' nested state is in
>> VMCS12).
>
> Yes and this was quite difficult thing to understand
> when I was trying to figure out how this code works.
>
> Also you can add another intersting state:
>
> 4) Right after emulating vmlauch/vmresume but before
> the actual entry to the nested guest (aka nested_run_pending=true)
>

Honestly, I haven't took a closer look at this state. Do you envision
specific issues? Can we actually try to serve KVM_GET_NESTED_STATE in
between setting 'nested_run_pending=true' and an actual attempt to enter
L2?

>
>
>>
>> The current solution is to always use VMCS12 as a container to transfer
>> the state and conceptually, it is at least easier to understand.
>>
>> We can, indeed, transfer eVMCS (or VMCS12) in case 2) through guest
>> memory and I even tried that but that was making the code more complex
>> so eventually I gave up and decided to preserve the 'always use VMCS12
>> as a container' status quo.
>
>
> My only point of concern is that it feels like it is wrong to update eVMCS
> when not doing a nested vmexit, because then the eVMCS is owned by the
> L1 hypervisor.

I see your concern and ideally we wouldn't have to touch it.

> At least not the fields which aren't supposed to be updated by us.
>
>
> This is a rough code draft of what I had in mind (not tested).
> To me this seems reasonable but I do agree that there is
> some complexety tradeoffs involved.
>
> About the compatibitly it can be said that:
>
>
> Case 1:
> Both old and new kernels will send/recive up to date vmcs12,
> while evcms is not up to date, and its contents aren't even defined
> (since L2 runs).
>
> Case 2:
> Old kernel will send vmcb12, with partial changes that L1 already
> made to evmcs, and latest state of evmcs with all changes
> in the guest memory.
>
> But these changes will be discarded on the receiving side,
> since once L1 asks us to enter L2, we will reload all the state from eVMCS,
> (at least the state that is marked as dirty, which means differ
> from vmcs12 as it was on the last nested vmexit)
>
> New kernel will always send the vmcb12 as it was on the last vmexit,
> a bit older version but even a more consistent one.
>
> But this doesn't matter either as just like in case of the old kernel,
> the vmcs12 will be updated from evmcs as soon as we do another L2 entry.
>
> So while in this case we send 'more stale' vmcb12, it doesn't
> really matter as it is stale anyway and will be reloaded from
> evmcs.
>
> Case 3:
> Old kernel will send up to date vmcb12 (since L1 didn't had a chance
> to run anyway after nested vmexit). The evmcs will not be up to date
> in the guest memory, but newer kernel can fix this by updating it
> as you did in patch 6.
>
> New kernel will send up to date vmcb12 (same reason) and up to date
> evmcs, so in fact an unchanged target kernel will be able to migrate
> from this state.
>
> So in fact my suggestion would allow to actually migrate to a kernel
> without the fix applied.
> This is even better than I thought.
>
>
> This is a rough draft of the idea:
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> index 6058a65a6ede..98eb7526cae6 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> @@ -167,15 +167,22 @@ static int nested_vmx_failInvalid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> static int nested_vmx_failValid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> u32 vm_instruction_error)
> {
> + struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> vmx_set_rflags(vcpu, (vmx_get_rflags(vcpu)
> & ~(X86_EFLAGS_CF | X86_EFLAGS_PF | X86_EFLAGS_AF |
> X86_EFLAGS_SF | X86_EFLAGS_OF))
> | X86_EFLAGS_ZF);
> get_vmcs12(vcpu)->vm_instruction_error = vm_instruction_error;
> +
> /*
> * We don't need to force a shadow sync because
> * VM_INSTRUCTION_ERROR is not shadowed
> + * We do need to update the evmcs
> */
> +
> + if (vmx->nested.hv_evmcs)
> + vmx->nested.hv_evmcs->vm_instruction_error = vm_instruction_error;
> +
> return kvm_skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
> }
>
> @@ -1962,6 +1969,10 @@ static int copy_vmcs12_to_enlightened(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
>
> evmcs->guest_bndcfgs = vmcs12->guest_bndcfgs;
>
> + /* All fields are clean */
> + vmx->nested.hv_evmcs->hv_clean_fields |=
> + HV_VMX_ENLIGHTENED_CLEAN_FIELD_ALL;
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -2055,16 +2066,7 @@ static enum nested_evmptrld_status nested_vmx_handle_enlightened_vmptrld(
> void nested_sync_vmcs12_to_shadow(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> -
> - if (vmx->nested.hv_evmcs) {
> - copy_vmcs12_to_enlightened(vmx);
> - /* All fields are clean */
> - vmx->nested.hv_evmcs->hv_clean_fields |=
> - HV_VMX_ENLIGHTENED_CLEAN_FIELD_ALL;
> - } else {
> - copy_vmcs12_to_shadow(vmx);
> - }
> -
> + copy_vmcs12_to_shadow(vmx);
> vmx->nested.need_vmcs12_to_shadow_sync = false;
> }
>
> @@ -3437,8 +3439,13 @@ enum nvmx_vmentry_status nested_vmx_enter_non_root_mode(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>
> load_vmcs12_host_state(vcpu, vmcs12);
> vmcs12->vm_exit_reason = exit_reason.full;
> - if (enable_shadow_vmcs || vmx->nested.hv_evmcs)
> +
> + if (enable_shadow_vmcs)
> vmx->nested.need_vmcs12_to_shadow_sync = true;
> +
> + if (vmx->nested.hv_evmcs)
> + copy_vmcs12_to_enlightened(vmx);
> +
> return NVMX_VMENTRY_VMEXIT;
> }
>
> @@ -4531,10 +4538,12 @@ void nested_vmx_vmexit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 vm_exit_reason,
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_APIC_PAGE_RELOAD, vcpu);
> }
>
> - if ((vm_exit_reason != -1) &&
> - (enable_shadow_vmcs || vmx->nested.hv_evmcs))
> + if ((vm_exit_reason != -1) && enable_shadow_vmcs)
> vmx->nested.need_vmcs12_to_shadow_sync = true;
>
> + if (vmx->nested.hv_evmcs)
> + copy_vmcs12_to_enlightened(vmx);
> +
> /* in case we halted in L2 */
> vcpu->arch.mp_state = KVM_MP_STATE_RUNNABLE;
>
> @@ -6111,12 +6120,8 @@ static int vmx_get_nested_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> sync_vmcs02_to_vmcs12_rare(vcpu, vmcs12);
> } else {
> copy_vmcs02_to_vmcs12_rare(vcpu, get_vmcs12(vcpu));
> - if (!vmx->nested.need_vmcs12_to_shadow_sync) {
> - if (vmx->nested.hv_evmcs)
> - copy_enlightened_to_vmcs12(vmx);
> - else if (enable_shadow_vmcs)
> - copy_shadow_to_vmcs12(vmx);
> - }
> + if (enable_shadow_vmcs && !vmx->nested.need_vmcs12_to_shadow_sync)
> + copy_shadow_to_vmcs12(vmx);
> }
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(user_vmx_nested_state->vmcs12) < VMCS12_SIZE);
>
>

I don't see why this can't work, the only concern here is that
conceptually, we'll be making eVMCS something different from shadow
vmcs. In any case, let's give this a try when this series fixing real
bugs lands.

--
Vitaly