Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit a2212082 authored by Sean Christopherson's avatar Sean Christopherson Committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman
Browse files

KVM: nVMX: Treat vpid01 as current if L2 is active, but with VPID disabled

commit 2657b82a upstream.

When getting the current VPID, e.g. to emulate a guest TLB flush, return
vpid01 if L2 is running but with VPID disabled, i.e. if VPID is disabled
in vmcs12.  Architecturally, if VPID is disabled, then the guest and host
effectively share VPID=0.  KVM emulates this behavior by using vpid01 when
running an L2 with VPID disabled (see prepare_vmcs02_early_rare()), and so
KVM must also treat vpid01 as the current VPID while L2 is active.

Unconditionally treating vpid02 as the current VPID when L2 is active
causes KVM to flush TLB entries for vpid02 instead of vpid01, which
results in TLB entries from L1 being incorrectly preserved across nested
VM-Enter to L2 (L2=>L1 isn't problematic, because the TLB flush after
nested VM-Exit flushes vpid01).

The bug manifests as failures in the vmx_apicv_test KVM-Unit-Test, as KVM
incorrectly retains TLB entries for the APIC-access page across a nested
VM-Enter.

Opportunisticaly add comments at various touchpoints to explain the
architectural requirements, and also why KVM uses vpid01 instead of vpid02.

All credit goes to Chao, who root caused the issue and identified the fix.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZwzczkIlYGX+QXJz@intel.com


Fixes: 2b4a5a5d ("KVM: nVMX: Flush current VPID (L1 vs. L2) for KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH_GUEST")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>
Debugged-by: default avatarChao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarChao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Tested-by: default avatarChao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241031202011.1580522-1-seanjc@google.com


Signed-off-by: default avatarSean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
parent e01aae58
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment