Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/AMD: Fix nested svm crash due to assertion in __virt_to_maddr

[Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>]

At 20:42 +0100 on 04 Jul (1372970576), Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 04/07/13 20:36, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com wrote:
> > From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
> >
> > Fix assertion in __virt_to_maddr when starting nested SVM guest
> > in debug mode. Investigation has shown that svm_vmsave/svm_vmload
> > make use of __pa() with invalid address.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
> > ---
> >  xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c        |    4 ++--
> >  xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/svm/svm.h |   14 ++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
> > index acd2d49..944569a 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c
> > @@ -1809,7 +1809,7 @@ svm_vmexit_do_vmload(struct vmcb_struct *vmcb,
> >          goto inject;
> >      }
> >  
> > -    svm_vmload(nv->nv_vvmcx);
> > +    nestedsvm_vmload(nv->nv_vvmcxaddr);
> >      /* State in L1 VMCB is stale now */
> >      v->arch.hvm_svm.vmcb_in_sync = 0;
> >  
> > @@ -1845,7 +1845,7 @@ svm_vmexit_do_vmsave(struct vmcb_struct *vmcb,
> >          goto inject;
> >      }
> >  
> > -    svm_vmsave(nv->nv_vvmcx);
> > +    nestedsvm_vmsave(nv->nv_vvmcxaddr);
> >  
> >      __update_guest_eip(regs, inst_len);
> >      return;
> > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/svm/svm.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/svm/svm.h
> > index 64e7e25..909e8a1 100644
> > --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/svm/svm.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/svm/svm.h
> > @@ -55,6 +55,20 @@ static inline void svm_vmsave(void *vmcb)
> >          : : "a" (__pa(vmcb)) : "memory" );
> >  }
> >  
> > +static inline void nestedsvm_vmload(uint64_t vmcb)
> 
> unsigned long if this is actually an address.

IIUC this is a physical address, so paddr_t is the correct type.  Also,
it might be nicer to call these svm_vm{save,load}_by_paddr() or similar
to make it clear what they do.

> But more importantly, if virt_to_maddr() fails an assertion because the
> virtual address is not a persistent mapping, what is going to happen
> when the virtual mapping (potentially) changes while the vvmcx is in use?

I think the virtual mapping is ok from that point of view -- it's mapped
with map_domain_page_global().  I worry that we might run out of mapping
slots if we keep a lot of these permanent mappings around, though.

Cheers,

Tim