[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <00691c37-5c29-e898-2657-8d7ef6b5dfad@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 21:53:14 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/54] KVM: x86: Alert userspace that KVM_SET_CPUID{,2}
after KVM_RUN is broken
On 23/06/21 21:02, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>
>> BTW, there is actually a theoretical usecase for KVM_SET_CPUID2 after
>> KVM_RUN, which is to test OSes against microcode updates that hide,
>> totally random example, the RTM bit. But it's still not worth keeping
>> it given 1) the bugs and complications in KVM, 2) if you really wanted
>> that kind of testing so hard, the fact that you can just create a new
>> vcpu file descriptor from scratch, possibly in cooperation with
>> userspace MSR filtering 3) AFAIK no one has done that anyway in 15 years.
>
> Though such a usecase may exist, I don't think it actually works
> today. For example, kvm_vcpu_after_set_cpuid() potentially changes the
> value of the guest IA32_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL MSR.
Yep, and that's why I'm okay with actively deprecating KVM_SET_CPUID2
and not just "discouraging" it.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists