On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 11:24 +0200, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:

On 14/09/2021 11:12, Maxim Levitsky wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 12:02 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 10:20 +0200, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:

quoted

On 12/09/2021 12:42, Maxim Levitsky wrote:

quoted

quoted

   
-	if (!nested_vmcb_valid_sregs(vcpu, &vmcb12->save) ||
+	if (!nested_vmcb_valid_sregs(vcpu, &svm->nested.save) ||
   	    !nested_vmcb_check_controls(vcpu, &svm->nested.ctl)) {

If you use a different struct for the copied fields, then it makes
sense IMHO to drop the 'control' parameter from nested_vmcb_check_controls,
and just use the svm->nested.save there directly.

Ok, what you say in patch 2 makes sense to me. I can create a new struct
vmcb_save_area_cached, but I need to keep nested.ctl because 1) it is
used also elsewhere, and different fields from the one checked here are
read/set and 2) using another structure (or the same

Yes, keep nested.ctl, since vast majority of the fields are copied I think.

But actually that you mention it, I'll say why not to create vmcb_control_area_cached
as well indeed and change the type of svm->nested.save to it. (in a separate patch)

I see what you mean that we modify it a bit (but we shoudn't to be honest) and such, but
all of this can be fixed.

So basically you are proposing:

struct svm_nested_state {
	...
	struct vmcb_control_area ctl; // we need this because it is used 
everywhere, I think
	struct vmcb_control_area_cached ctl_cached;
	struct vmcb_save_area_cached save_cached;
	...
}

and then

if (!nested_vmcb_valid_sregs(vcpu, &svm->nested.save_cached) ||
     !nested_vmcb_check_controls(vcpu, &svm->nested.ctl_cached)) {

like that?

Or do you want to delete nested.ctl completely and just keep the fields 
actually used in ctl_cached?

I would do it this way:

struct svm_nested_state {
        ...
	/* cached fields from the vmcb12 */
	struct  vmcb_control_area_cached ctl;
	struct  vmcb_save_area_cached save;
        ...
};


Best regards,
     Maxim Levitsky

Also, note that as I am trying to use vmcb_save_area_cached, it is worth 
noticing that nested_vmcb_valid_sregs() is also used in 
svm_set_nested_state(), so it requires some additional little changes.

Thank you,
Emanuele

quoted

The advantage of having vmcb_control_area_cached is that it becomes impossible to use
by mistake a non copied field from the guest.

It would also emphasize that this stuff came from the guest and should be treated as
a toxic waste.

Note again that this should be done if we agree as a separate patch.

quoted

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky

quoted

vmcb_save_area_cached) in its place would just duplicate the same fields
of nested.ctl, creating even more confusion and possible inconsistency.

Let me know if you disagree.

Thank you,
Emanuele