[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tuf8tu9l.fsf@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 17:00:06 +0100
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, oliver.sang@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Avoid KVM_SET_CPUID2 after KVM_RUN in
vmx_pmu_msrs_test
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> writes:
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> > index 85127b3e3690..65e297875405 100644
>> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> > @@ -3424,7 +3424,7 @@ int kvm_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
>> >
>> > if (!msr_info->host_initiated)
>> > return 1;
>> > - if (guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PDCM) && kvm_get_msr_feature(&msr_ent))
>> > + if (kvm_get_msr_feature(&msr_ent))
>> > return 1;
>> > if (data & ~msr_ent.data)
>> > return 1;
>>
>> This looks OK.
>>
>> > @@ -3779,14 +3779,12 @@ int kvm_get_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
>> > msr_info->data = vcpu->arch.microcode_version;
>> > break;
>> > case MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES:
>> > - if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
>> > - !guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES))
>> > + if (!msr_info->host_initiated)
>> > return 1;
>> > msr_info->data = vcpu->arch.arch_capabilities;
>> > break;
>> > case MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES:
>> > - if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
>> > - !guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PDCM))
>> > + if (!msr_info->host_initiated)
>> > return 1;
>> > msr_info->data = vcpu->arch.perf_capabilities;
>> > break;
>> >
>>
>> Hm, this change will unconditionally forbid reading
>> MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES/MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES from the guest. Is
>> this what we want?
>
> No, I completely misread the code. The kvm_set_msr_common() goof seems to be
> the only bug, and that would also explain the selftest's bad testcase.
>
Ok then, v2 is coming.
--
Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists