lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 06/11] KVM: x86: Advertise ARCH_CAP_VIRTUAL_ENUM support
From
On 5/19/2023 5:57 PM, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 06:14:40PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>>> static u32 msr_based_features[ARRAY_SIZE(msr_based_features_all)];
>>> @@ -1591,7 +1593,8 @@ static unsigned int num_msr_based_features;
>>> ARCH_CAP_SKIP_VMENTRY_L1DFLUSH | ARCH_CAP_SSB_NO | ARCH_CAP_MDS_NO | \
>>> ARCH_CAP_PSCHANGE_MC_NO | ARCH_CAP_TSX_CTRL_MSR | ARCH_CAP_TAA_NO | \
>>> ARCH_CAP_SBDR_SSDP_NO | ARCH_CAP_FBSDP_NO | ARCH_CAP_PSDP_NO | \
>>> - ARCH_CAP_FB_CLEAR | ARCH_CAP_RRSBA | ARCH_CAP_PBRSB_NO)
>>> + ARCH_CAP_FB_CLEAR | ARCH_CAP_RRSBA | ARCH_CAP_PBRSB_NO | \
>>> + ARCH_CAP_VIRTUAL_ENUM)
>>
>> We cannot do it.
>>
>> Otherwise, an AMD L1 with X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES configured is
>> possible to expose MSR_VIRTUAL_ENUMERATION to L2 while no support for it.
>
> How does AMD L1 see the ARCH_CAP_VIRTUAL_ENUM feature in the first
> place? because ...
>
>>
>>> static u64 kvm_get_arch_capabilities(void)
>>> {
>>> @@ -1610,6 +1613,17 @@ static u64 kvm_get_arch_capabilities(void)
>>> */
>>> data |= ARCH_CAP_PSCHANGE_MC_NO;
>>> + /*
>>> + * Virtual enumeration is a paravirt feature. The only usage for now
>>> + * is to bridge the gap caused by microarchitecture changes between
>>> + * different Intel processors. And its usage is linked to "virtualize
>>> + * IA32_SPEC_CTRL" which is a VMX feature. Whether AMD SVM can benefit
>>> + * from the same usage and how to implement it is still unclear. Limit
>>> + * virtual enumeration to VMX.
>>> + */
>>> + if (static_call(kvm_x86_has_emulated_msr)(NULL, MSR_VIRTUAL_ENUMERATION))
>>> + data |= ARCH_CAP_VIRTUAL_ENUM;
>
> the feature is exposed on Intel CPUs only.
>
> Do you mean AMD L1 created on Intel L0? and Intel L0 even emulates
> nested (SVM) support for the L1? This sounds a very contrived case.

you are right. I was thinking of an rare case but ignored the fact that
VMX doesn't nested svm.

Sorry for it.

>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * If we're doing cache flushes (either "always" or "cond")
>>> * we will do one whenever the guest does a vmlaunch/vmresume.
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-05-22 03:03    [W:0.084 / U:0.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site