[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 15:28:57 -0500
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] KVM: x86: Add IBPB support
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:16:15PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 14:56 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 06:02:24PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 12:49 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -625,7 +629,12 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_ent(struct
> > > > > kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry, u32 function,
> > > > > if (!g_phys_as)
> > > > > g_phys_as = phys_as;
> > > > > entry->eax = g_phys_as | (virt_as << 8);
> > > > > - entry->ebx = entry->edx = 0;
> > > > > + entry->edx = 0;
> > > > > + /* IBPB isn't necessarily present in hardware cpuid> */
> > > > > + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBPB))
> > > > > + entry->ebx |= F(IBPB);
> > > > > + entry->ebx &= kvm_cpuid_8000_0008_ebx_x86_features;
> > > > > + cpuid_mask(&entry->ebx, CPUID_8000_0008_EBX);
> > > > It is with x86/pti nowadays. I think you can remove that comment.
> > > In this code we use the actual CPUID instruction, then filter stuff out
> > > of it (with &= kvm_cpuid_XXX_x86_features and then cpuid_mask() to turn
> > > off any bits which were otherwise present in the hardware and *would*
> > > have been supported by KVM, but which the kernel has decided to pretend
> > > are not present.
> > >
> > > Nothing would *set* the IBPB bit though, since that's a "virtual" bit
> > > on Intel hardware. The comment explains why we have that |= F(IBPB),
> > > and if the comment wasn't true, we wouldn't need that code either.
> >
> > But this seems wrong. That is on Intel CPUs we will advertise on
> > AMD leaf that the IBPB feature is available.
> >
> > Shouldn't we just check to see if the machine is AMD before advertising
> > this bit?
>
> No. The AMD feature bits give us more fine-grained support for exposing
> IBPB or IBRS alone, so we expose those bits on Intel too.
But but.. that runs smack against the idea of exposing a platform that
is as close to emulating the real hardware as possible.
As in I would never expect an Intel CPU to expose the IBPB on the 0x8000_0008
leaf. Hence KVM (nor any hypervisor) should not do it either.
Unless Intel is doing it? Did I miss a new spec update?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists