[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <89857bde-f9c8-4d5f-0e3f-a53829520284@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 15:44:00 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Tian Kevin <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86/cpuid: Exclude unpermitted xfeatures sizes at
KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID
On 1/25/22 12:52, Like Xu wrote:
> From: Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
>
> With the help of xstate_get_guest_group_perm(), KVM can exclude unpermitted
> xfeatures in cpuid.0xd.0.eax, in which case the corresponding xfeatures
> sizes should also be matched to the permitted xfeatures.
>
> To fix this inconsistency, the permitted_xcr0 and permitted_xss are defined
> consistently, which implies 'supported' plus certain permissions for this
> task, and it also fixes cpuid.0xd.1.ebx and later leaf-by-leaf queries.
>
> Fixes: 445ecdf79be0 ("kvm: x86: Exclude unpermitted xfeatures at KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID")
> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
> ---
> v1 -> v2 Changelog:
> - Drop the use of shadow variable; (Paolo)
> - Define permitted_xss consistently; (Kevin)
>
> Previous:
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20220124080251.60558-1-likexu@tencent.com/
>
> arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c | 25 +++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> index 3902c28fb6cb..07844d15dfdf 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> @@ -887,13 +887,14 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_func(struct kvm_cpuid_array *array, u32 function)
> }
> break;
> case 0xd: {
> - u64 guest_perm = xstate_get_guest_group_perm();
> + u64 permitted_xcr0 = supported_xcr0 & xstate_get_guest_group_perm();
> + u64 permitted_xss = supported_xss;
>
> - entry->eax &= supported_xcr0 & guest_perm;
> - entry->ebx = xstate_required_size(supported_xcr0, false);
> + entry->eax &= permitted_xcr0;
> + entry->ebx = xstate_required_size(permitted_xcr0, false);
> entry->ecx = entry->ebx;
> - entry->edx &= (supported_xcr0 & guest_perm) >> 32;
> - if (!supported_xcr0)
> + entry->edx &= permitted_xcr0 >> 32;
> + if (!permitted_xcr0)
> break;
>
> entry = do_host_cpuid(array, function, 1);
> @@ -902,20 +903,20 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_func(struct kvm_cpuid_array *array, u32 function)
>
> cpuid_entry_override(entry, CPUID_D_1_EAX);
> if (entry->eax & (F(XSAVES)|F(XSAVEC)))
> - entry->ebx = xstate_required_size(supported_xcr0 | supported_xss,
> + entry->ebx = xstate_required_size(permitted_xcr0 | permitted_xss,
> true);
> else {
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(supported_xss != 0);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(permitted_xss != 0);
> entry->ebx = 0;
> }
> - entry->ecx &= supported_xss;
> - entry->edx &= supported_xss >> 32;
> + entry->ecx &= permitted_xss;
> + entry->edx &= permitted_xss >> 32;
>
> for (i = 2; i < 64; ++i) {
> bool s_state;
> - if (supported_xcr0 & BIT_ULL(i))
> + if (permitted_xcr0 & BIT_ULL(i))
> s_state = false;
> - else if (supported_xss & BIT_ULL(i))
> + else if (permitted_xss & BIT_ULL(i))
> s_state = true;
> else
> continue;
> @@ -929,7 +930,7 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_func(struct kvm_cpuid_array *array, u32 function)
> * invalid sub-leafs. Only valid sub-leafs should
> * reach this point, and they should have a non-zero
> * save state size. Furthermore, check whether the
> - * processor agrees with supported_xcr0/supported_xss
> + * processor agrees with permitted_xcr0/permitted_xss
> * on whether this is an XCR0- or IA32_XSS-managed area.
> */
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!entry->eax || (entry->ecx & 0x1) != s_state)) {
Queued, thanks.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists