Re: [PATCH 1/4 v5] KVM: nSVM: If VMRUN is single-stepped, queue the #DB intercept in nested_svm_vmexit()
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: 2021-03-26 17:33:15
On 23/03/21 18:50, Krish Sadhukhan wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
According to APM, the #DB intercept for a single-stepped VMRUN must happen after the completion of that instruction, when the guest does #VMEXIT to the host. However, in the current implementation of KVM, the #DB intercept for a single-stepped VMRUN happens after the completion of the instruction that follows the VMRUN instruction. When the #DB intercept handler is invoked, it shows the RIP of the instruction that follows VMRUN, instead of of VMRUN itself. This is an incorrect RIP as far as single-stepping VMRUN is concerned. This patch fixes the problem by checking, in nested_svm_vmexit(), for the condition that the VMRUN instruction is being single-stepped and if so, queues the pending #DB intercept so that the #DB is accounted for before we execute L1's next instruction. Suggested-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Krish Sadhukhan <redacted> --- arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c index 35891d9a1099..713ce5cfb0db 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c@@ -720,6 +720,16 @@ int nested_svm_vmexit(struct vcpu_svm *svm) kvm_clear_exception_queue(&svm->vcpu); kvm_clear_interrupt_queue(&svm->vcpu); + /* + * If we are here following the completion of a VMRUN that + * is being single-stepped, queue the pending #DB intercept + * right now so that it an be accounted for before we execute + * L1's next instruction. + */ + if (unlikely(svm->vmcb->control.exit_code == SVM_EXIT_VMRUN && + svm->vmcb->save.rflags & X86_EFLAGS_TF)) + kvm_queue_exception(&(svm->vcpu), DB_VECTOR); + return 0; }
Wouldn't the exit code always be SVM_EXIT_VMRUN after the vmcb01/vmcb02 split? I can take care of adding a WARN_ON myself, but I wouldn't mind if you checked that my reasoning is true. :) Paolo