linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: introduce definitions to support static calls for kvm_x86

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 13 Jan 2021 11:16:38 -0500
From:   Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        peterz@...radead.org, aarcange@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: introduce definitions to support static
 calls for kvm_x86_ops



On 1/13/21 7:53 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/01/21 17:57, Jason Baron wrote:
>> +#define DEFINE_KVM_OPS_STATIC_CALL(func)    \
>> +    DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL(kvm_x86_##func,    \
>> +                *(((struct kvm_x86_ops *)0)->func))
>> +#define DEFINE_KVM_OPS_STATIC_CALLS() \
>> +    FOREACH_KVM_X86_OPS(DEFINE_KVM_OPS_STATIC_CALL)
> 
> Something wrong here?

Hmmm...not sure what you are getting at here.

> 
>> +#define DECLARE_KVM_OPS_STATIC_CALL(func)    \
>> +    DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(kvm_x86_##func,    \
>> +                *(((struct kvm_x86_ops *)0)->func))
>> +#define DECLARE_KVM_OPS_STATIC_CALLS()        \
>> +    FOREACH_KVM_X86_OPS(DECLARE_KVM_OPS_STATIC_CALL)
>> +
>> +#define KVM_OPS_STATIC_CALL_UPDATE(func)    \
>> +    static_call_update(kvm_x86_##func, kvm_x86_ops.func)
>> +#define KVM_OPS_STATIC_CALL_UPDATES()        \
>> +    FOREACH_KVM_X86_OPS(KVM_OPS_STATIC_CALL_UPDATE)
>> +
>>   struct kvm_x86_ops {
>>       int (*hardware_enable)(void);
>>       void (*hardware_disable)(void);
>> @@ -1326,6 +1385,12 @@ extern u64 __read_mostly host_efer;
>>   extern bool __read_mostly allow_smaller_maxphyaddr;
>>   extern struct kvm_x86_ops kvm_x86_ops;
>>   +DECLARE_KVM_OPS_STATIC_CALLS();
>> +static inline void kvm_ops_static_call_update(void)
>> +{
>> +    KVM_OPS_STATIC_CALL_UPDATES();
>> +}
> 
> This would become
> 
> #define KVM_X86_OP(func) \
>     DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(kvm_x86_##func,    \
>                 *(((struct kvm_x86_ops *)0)->func));
> 
> #include <asm/kvm-x86-ops.h>
> 
> static inline void kvm_ops_static_call_update(void)
> {
> #define KVM_X86_OP(func) \
>   static_call_update(kvm_x86_##func, kvm_x86_ops.func)
> #include <asm/kvm-x86-ops.h>
> }
> 
> If you need to choose between DECLARE_STATIC_CALL_NULL and DECLARE_STATIC_CALL, you can have kvm-x86-ops.h use one of two macros KVM_X86_OP_NULL and
> KVM_X86_OP.
> 
> #define KVM_X86_OP(func) \
>     DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(kvm_x86_##func,    \
>                 *(((struct kvm_x86_ops *)0)->func));
> 
> #define KVM_X86_OP_NULL(func) \
>     DECLARE_STATIC_CALL_NULL(kvm_x86_##func,    \
>                 *(((struct kvm_x86_ops *)0)->func));
> 
> #include <asm/kvm-x86-ops.h>
> 
> ...
> 
> #define KVM_X86_OP(func) \
>   static_call_update(kvm_x86_##func, kvm_x86_ops.func)
> #define KVM_X86_OP_NULL(func) \
>   static_call_update(kvm_x86_##func, kvm_x86_ops.func)
> #include <asm/kvm-x86-ops.h>
> 
> In that case vmx.c and svm.c could define KVM_X86_OP_NULL to an empty string and list the optional callbacks manually.
> 

Ok, yes, this all makes sense. So I looked at vmx/svm definitions
and I see that there are 5 definitions that are common that
don't use the vmx or svm prefix:

.update_exception_bitmap = update_exception_bitmap,
.enable_nmi_window = enable_nmi_window,
.enable_irq_window = enable_irq_window,
.update_cr8_intercept = update_cr8_intercept,
.enable_smi_window = enable_smi_window,

8 are specific to vmx that don't use the vmx prefix:

.hardware_unsetup = hardware_unsetup,
.hardware_enable = hardware_enable,
.hardware_disable = hardware_disable,
.cpu_has_accelerated_tpr = report_flexpriority,
.dy_apicv_has_pending_interrupt = pi_has_pending_interrupt,
.has_wbinvd_exit = cpu_has_vmx_wbinvd_exit,
.update_pi_irte = pi_update_irte,
.complete_emulated_msr = kvm_complete_insn_gp,

and finally 7 specific to svm that don't use the svm prefix:

.get_cs_db_l_bits = kvm_get_cs_db_l_bits,
.handle_exit = handle_exit,
.skip_emulated_instruction = skip_emulated_instruction,
.update_emulated_instruction = NULL,
.sync_pir_to_irr = kvm_lapic_find_highest_irr,
.apicv_post_state_restore = avic_post_state_restore,
.request_immediate_exit = __kvm_request_immediate_exit,


So we could set all of these to empty definitions and specifically
add the callbacks manually as you suggested. Or we could have 4
categories of macros:

1) KVM_X86_OP()  - for the usual case where we have the 'svm' or
'vmx' prefix.

2) KVM_X86_OP_NULL() - for the case where both svm and vmx want
to over-ride.

For the remaining cases I was thinking of having the VMX code
and svm code, add a define for 'VMX' or 'SVM' respectively and
then we could mark the vmx specific ones by adding something like
this to asm/kvm-x86-ops.h:

#ifndef VMX
 #define KVM_X86_OP_UNLESS_VMX(func) \
	KVM_X86_OP(func)
#else
 #define KVM_X86_OP_UNLESS_VMX(func)
#endif

and similarly for the svm specific ones:

#ifndef SVM
 #define KVM_X86_OP_UNLESS_SVM(func) \
	KVM_X86_OP(func)
#else
 #define KVM_X86_OP_UNLESS_SVM(func)
#endif


So in vmx.c you would have:

#define X86_OP(func)     .func = vmx_##func,
#define VMX 1
#include "kvm-x86-ops.h"

Or we could just use the KVM_X86_OP_NULL() macro for anything
that doesn't have a 'svm' or 'vmx' prefix as I think you were
suggesting? In that case I think there would then be 13 manual
additions for vmx and 12 for svm.

Thanks,

-Jason