lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 03/26] x86/hyperv: Update 'struct hv_enlightened_vmcs' definition
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> >> + * Note: HV_X64_NESTED_EVMCS1_2022_UPDATE is not currently documented in any
> >> >> + * published TLFS version. When the bit is set, nested hypervisor can use
> >> >> + * 'updated' eVMCSv1 specification (perf_global_ctrl, s_cet, ssp, lbr_ctl,
> >> >> + * encls_exiting_bitmap, tsc_multiplier fields which were missing in 2016
> >> >> + * specification).
> >> >> + */
> >> >> +#define HV_X64_NESTED_EVMCS1_2022_UPDATE BIT(0)
> >> >
> >> > This bit is now defined[*], but the docs says it's only for perf_global_ctrl. Are
> >> > we expecting an update to the TLFS?
> >> >
> >> > Indicates support for the GuestPerfGlobalCtrl and HostPerfGlobalCtrl fields
> >> > in the enlightened VMCS.
> >> >
> >> > [*] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/hyper-v-on-windows/tlfs/feature-discovery#hypervisor-nested-virtualization-features---0x4000000a
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh well, better this than nothing. I'll ping the people who told me
> >> about this bit that their description is incomplete.
> >
> > Not that it changes anything, but I'd rather have no documentation. I'd much rather
> > KVM say "this is the undocumented behavior" than "the document behavior is wrong".
> >
>
> So I reached out to Microsoft and their answer was that for all these new
> eVMCS fields (including *PerfGlobalCtrl) observing architectural VMX
> MSRs should be enough. *PerfGlobalCtrl case is special because of Win11
> bug (if we expose the feature in VMX feature MSRs but don't set
> CPUID.0x4000000A.EBX BIT(0) it just doesn't boot).

I.e. TSC_SCALING shouldn't be gated on the flag? If so, then the 2-D array approach
is overkill since (a) the CPUID flag only controls PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL and (b) we aren't
expecting any more flags in the future.

What about this for an implementation?

static bool evmcs_has_perf_global_ctrl(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
struct kvm_vcpu_hv *hv_vcpu = to_hv_vcpu(vcpu);

/*
* Filtering VMX controls for eVMCS compatibility should only be done
* for guest accesses, and all such accesses should be gated on Hyper-V
* being enabled and initialized.
*/
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!hv_vcpu))
return false;

return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.nested_ebx & HV_X64_NESTED_EVMCS1_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL;
}

static u32 evmcs_get_unsupported_ctls(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr_index)
{
u32 unsupported_ctrls;

switch (msr_index) {
case MSR_IA32_VMX_EXIT_CTLS:
case MSR_IA32_VMX_TRUE_EXIT_CTLS:
unsupported_ctrls = EVMCS1_UNSUPPORTED_VMEXIT_CTRL;
if (!evmcs_has_perf_global_ctrl(vcpu))
unsupported_ctrls |= VM_EXIT_LOAD_IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL;
return unsupported_ctrls;
case MSR_IA32_VMX_ENTRY_CTLS:
case MSR_IA32_VMX_TRUE_ENTRY_CTLS:
unsupported_ctrls = EVMCS1_UNSUPPORTED_VMENTRY_CTRL;
if (!evmcs_has_perf_global_ctrl(vcpu))
unsupported_ctrls |= VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL;
return unsupported_ctrls;
case MSR_IA32_VMX_PROCBASED_CTLS2:
return EVMCS1_UNSUPPORTED_2NDEXEC;
case MSR_IA32_VMX_TRUE_PINBASED_CTLS:
case MSR_IA32_VMX_PINBASED_CTLS:
return EVMCS1_UNSUPPORTED_PINCTRL;
case MSR_IA32_VMX_VMFUNC:
return EVMCS1_UNSUPPORTED_VMFUNC;
default:
KVM_BUG_ON(1, vcpu->kvm);
return 0;
}
}

void nested_evmcs_filter_control_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr_index, u64 *pdata)
{
u64 unsupported_ctrls = evmcs_get_unsupported_ctls(vcpu, msr_index);

if (msr_index == MSR_IA32_VMX_VMFUNC)
*pdata &= ~unsupported_ctrls;
else
*pdata &= ~(unsupported_ctrls << 32);
}


> What I'm still concerned about is future proofing KVM for new
> features. When something is getting added to KVM for which no eVMCS
> field is currently defined, both Hyper-V-on-KVM and KVM-on-Hyper-V cases
> should be taken care of. It would probably be better to reverse our
> filtering, explicitly listing features supported in eVMCS. The lists are
> going to be fairly long but at least we won't have to take care of any
> new architectural feature added to KVM.

Having the filtering be opt-in crossed my mind as well. Reversing the filtering
can be done after this series though, correct?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-22 17:56    [W:0.179 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site