[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YGNYhWXe57FMm6Ku@google.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:57:41 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] x86/tdx: Handle MWAIT, MONITOR and WBINVD
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 2021, at 8:14 AM, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>
> >>>> On Mar 29, 2021, at 7:04 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> No, if these instructions take a #VE then they were executed at CPL=0. MONITOR
> >>>>> and MWAIT will #UD without VM-Exit->#VE. Same for WBINVD, s/#UD/#GP.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dare I ask about XSETBV?
> >>>
> >>> XGETBV does not cause a #VE, it just works normally. The guest has full
> >>> AVX capabilities.
> >>>
> >>
> >> X *SET* BV
> >
> > Heh, XSETBV also works normally, relative to the features enumerated in CPUID.
> > XSAVES/XRSTORS support is fixed to '1' in the virtual CPU model. A subset of
> > the features managed by XSAVE can be hidden by the VMM, but attempting to enable
> > unsupported features will #GP (either from hardware or injected by TDX Module),
> > not #VE.
>
> Normally in non-root mode means that every XSETBV results in a VM exit and,
> IIUC, there’s a buglet in that this happens even if CPL==3. Does something
> special happen in TDX or does the exit get reflected back to the guest as a
> #VE?
Hmm, I forgot about that quirk. I would expect the TDX Module to inject a #GP
for that case. I can't find anything in the spec that confirms or denies that,
but injecting #VE would be weird and pointless.
Andi/Sathya, the TDX Module spec should be updated to state that XSETBV will
#GP at CPL!=0. If that's not already the behavior, the module should probably
be changed...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists