[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <66cc68ea-a599-ffd5-9fc9-dd9c0749e3c8@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 10:33:45 +0800
From: Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@...el.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 6/7] KVM: X86: Expose PKS to guest and userspace
On 8/14/2020 3:04 AM, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:47 AM Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> Existence of PKS is enumerated via CPUID.(EAX=7H,ECX=0):ECX[31]. It is
>> enabled by setting CR4.PKS when long mode is active. PKS is only
>> implemented when EPT is enabled and requires the support of VM_{ENTRY,
>> EXIT}_LOAD_IA32_PKRS currently.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@...el.com>
>
>> @@ -967,7 +969,8 @@ int kvm_set_cr4(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr4)
>> {
>> unsigned long old_cr4 = kvm_read_cr4(vcpu);
>> unsigned long pdptr_bits = X86_CR4_PGE | X86_CR4_PSE | X86_CR4_PAE |
>> - X86_CR4_SMEP | X86_CR4_SMAP | X86_CR4_PKE;
>> + X86_CR4_SMEP | X86_CR4_SMAP | X86_CR4_PKE |
>> + X86_CR4_PKS;
>
> This list already seems overly long, but I don't think CR4.PKS belongs
> here. In volume 3 of the SDM, section 4.4.1, it says:
>
> - If PAE paging would be in use following an execution of MOV to CR0
> or MOV to CR4 (see Section 4.1.1) and the instruction is modifying any
> of CR0.CD, CR0.NW, CR0.PG, CR4.PAE, CR4.PGE, CR4.PSE, or CR4.SMEP;
> then the PDPTEs are loaded from the address in CR3.
>
> CR4.PKS is not in the list of CR4 bits that result in a PDPTE load.
> Since it has no effect on PAE paging, I would be surprised if it did
> result in a PDPTE load.
>
Oh, My mistake.
>> if (kvm_valid_cr4(vcpu, cr4))
>> return 1;
>> @@ -1202,7 +1205,7 @@ static const u32 msrs_to_save_all[] = {
>> MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR1_A, MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR1_B,
>> MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR2_A, MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR2_B,
>> MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR3_A, MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR3_B,
>> - MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL,
>> + MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL, MSR_IA32_PKRS,
>
> Should MSR_IA32_PKRS be added to the switch statement in
> kvm_init_msr_list()? Something like...
>
> case MSR_IA32_PKRS:
> if (!kvm_cpu_cap_has(X86_FEATURE_PKRS))
> continue;
> break;
>
Yes, this should be added.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists