On Tue, May 13, 2025, Jon Kohler wrote:
> > On May 12, 2025, at 2:23 PM, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025, Jon Kohler wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >> index 7a98f03ef146..116910159a3f 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >> @@ -2694,6 +2694,7 @@ static int setup_vmcs_config(struct vmcs_config *vmcs_conf,
> >> return -EIO;
> >>
> >> vmx_cap->ept = 0;
> >> + _cpu_based_2nd_exec_control &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_MODE_BASED_EPT_EXEC;
> >> _cpu_based_2nd_exec_control &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_EPT_VIOLATION_VE;
> >> }
> >> if (!(_cpu_based_2nd_exec_control & SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_VPID) &&
> >> @@ -4641,11 +4642,15 @@ static u32 vmx_secondary_exec_control(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
> >> exec_control &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_VPID;
> >> if (!enable_ept) {
> >> exec_control &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_EPT;
> >> + exec_control &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_MODE_BASED_EPT_EXEC;
> >> exec_control &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_EPT_VIOLATION_VE;
> >> enable_unrestricted_guest = 0;
> >> }
> >> if (!enable_unrestricted_guest)
> >> exec_control &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_UNRESTRICTED_GUEST;
> >> + if (!enable_pt_guest_exec_control)
> >> + exec_control &= ~SECONDARY_EXEC_MODE_BASED_EPT_EXEC;
> >
> > This is wrong and unnecessary. As mentioned early, the input that matters is
> > vmcs12. This flag should *never* be set for vmcs01.
>
> I’ll page this back in, but I’m like 75% sure it didn’t work when I did it that way.
Then you had other bugs. The control is per-VMCS and thus needs to be emulated
as such. Definitely holler if you get stuck, there's no need to develop this in
complete isolation.
