[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2db54d3-73ab-7e24-8368-3288e9d18f14@amazon.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 18:46:12 +0100
From: KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Andrea Arcangeli" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] KVM: VMX: Allow direct access to
MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL
On 02/01/2018 06:37 PM, KarimAllah Ahmed wrote:
> On 02/01/2018 02:25 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 23:26 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>>>> index 6a9f4ec..bfc80ff 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>>>> @@ -594,6 +594,14 @@ struct vcpu_vmx {
>>>> #endif
>>>> u64 arch_capabilities;
>>>> + u64 spec_ctrl;
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * This indicates that:
>>>> + * 1) guest_cpuid_has(X86_FEATURE_IBRS) == true &&
>>>> + * 2) The guest has actually initiated a write against the MSR.
>>>> + */
>>>> + bool spec_ctrl_used;
>>>> /*
>>>> * This indicates that:
>>
>> Thanks for persisting with the details here, Karim. In addition to
>> Konrad's heckling at the comments, I'll add my own request to his...
>>
>> I'd like the comment for spec_ctrl_used to explain why it isn't
>> entirely redundant with the spec_ctrl_intercepted() function.
>>
>> Without nesting, I believe it *would* be redundant, but the difference
>> comes when an L2 is running for which L1 has not permitted the MSR to
>> be passed through. That's when we have spec_ctrl_used = true but the
>> MSR *isn't* actually passed through in the active msr_bitmap.
>>
>> Question: if spec_ctrl_used is always equivalent to the intercept bit
>> in the vmcs01.msr_bitmap, just not the guest bitmap... should we ditch
>> it and always use the bit from the vmcs01.msr_bitmap?
>
> If I used the vmcs01.msr_bitmap, spec_ctrl_used will always be true if
> L0 passed it to L1. Even if L1 did not actually pass it to L2 and even
> if L2 has not written to it yet (!used).
>
> This pretty much renders the short-circuit at
> nested_vmx_merge_msr_bitmap useless:
>
> if (!nested_cpu_has_virt_x2apic_mode(vmcs12) &&
> !to_vmx(vcpu)->pred_cmd_used &&
> !to_vmx(vcpu)->spec_ctrl_used)
> return false;
>
> ... and the default path will be kvm_vcpu_gpa_to_page + kmap.
>
> That being said, I have to admit the logic for spec_ctrl_used is not
> perfect either.
>
> If L1 or any of the L2s touched the MSR, spec_ctrl_used will be set to
> true. So if one L2 used the MSR, all other L2s will also skip the short-
> circuit mentioned above and end up *always* going through
> kvm_vcpu_gpa_to_page + kmap.
>
> Maybe all of this is over-thinking and in reality the short-circuit
> above is really useless and all L2 guests are happily using x2apic :)
>
hehe ..
>> if spec_ctrl_used is always equivalent to the intercept bit in the
vmcs01.msr_bitmap
actually yes, we can.
I just forgot that we update the msr bitmap lazily! :)
>>
>> Sorry :)
>>
Amazon Development Center Germany GmbH
Berlin - Dresden - Aachen
main office: Krausenstr. 38, 10117 Berlin
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Dr. Ralf Herbrich, Christian Schlaeger
Ust-ID: DE289237879
Eingetragen am Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 149173 B
Powered by blists - more mailing lists