Re: [PATCH 03/11] KVM: nSVM: Add missing consistency check for event_inj

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Tue, Nov 04, 2025, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> According to the APM Volume #2, 15.20 (24593—Rev. 3.42—March 2024):
> 
>   VMRUN exits with VMEXIT_INVALID error code if either:
>   • Reserved values of TYPE have been specified, or
>   • TYPE = 3 (exception) has been specified with a vector that does not
>     correspond to an exception (this includes vector 2, which is an NMI,
>     not an exception).
> 
> Add the missing consistency checks to KVM. For the second point, inject
> VMEXIT_INVALID if the vector is anything but the vectors defined by the
> APM for exceptions. Reserved vectors are also considered invalid, which
> matches the HW behavior.

Ugh.  Strictly speaking, that means KVM needs to match the capabilities of the
virtual CPU.  E.g. if the virtual CPU predates SEV-ES, then #VC should be reserved
from the guest's perspective.

> Vector 9 (i.e. #CSO) is considered invalid because it is reserved on modern
> CPUs, and according to LLMs no CPUs exist supporting SVM and producing #CSOs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@linux.dev>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h |  5 +++++
>  arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c  | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> index e69b6d0dedcf0..3a9441a8954f3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> @@ -633,6 +633,11 @@ static inline void __unused_size_checks(void)
>  #define SVM_EVTINJ_VALID (1 << 31)
>  #define SVM_EVTINJ_VALID_ERR (1 << 11)
>  
> +/* Only valid exceptions (and not NMIs) are allowed for SVM_EVTINJ_TYPE_EXEPT */
> +#define SVM_EVNTINJ_INVALID_EXEPTS (NMI_VECTOR | BIT_ULL(9) | BIT_ULL(15) | \
> +				    BIT_ULL(20) | GENMASK_ULL(27, 22) | \
> +				    BIT_ULL(31))

As above, hardcoding this won't work.  E.g. if a VM is migrated from a CPU where
vector X is reserved to a CPU where vector X is valid, then the VM will observe
a change in behavior. 

Even if we're ok being overly permissive today (e.g. by taking an erratum), this
will create problems in the future when one of the reserved vectors is defined,
at which point we'll end up changing guest-visible behavior (and will have to
take another erratum, or maybe define the erratum to be that KVM straight up
doesn't enforce this correctly?)

And if we do throw in the towel and don't try to enforce this, we'll still want
a safeguard against this becoming stale, e.g. when KVM adds support for new
feature XYZ that comes with a new vector.

Off the cuff, the best idea I have is to define the positive set of vectors
somewhere common with a static assert, and then invert that.  E.g. maybe something
shared with kvm_trace_sym_exc()?