[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60879468-c54f-e7f1-2123-ba4cf4128ac3@intel.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 18:17:37 +0800
From: Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Hu, Robert" <robert.hu@...el.com>,
"Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 7/8] KVM: x86: Allow userspace set maximum VCPU id for
VM
On 4/1/2022 10:01 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022, Zeng Guang wrote:
>> Introduce new max_vcpu_id in KVM for x86 architecture. Userspace
>> can assign maximum possible vcpu id for current VM session using
>> KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID of KVM_ENABLE_CAP ioctl().
>>
>> This is done for x86 only because the sole use case is to guide
>> memory allocation for PID-pointer table, a structure needed to
>> enable VMX IPI.
>>
>> By default, max_vcpu_id set as KVM_MAX_VCPU_IDS.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 6 ++++++
>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 11 +++++++++++
> The new behavior needs to be documented in api.rst.
OK. I will prepare document for it.
>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 6dcccb304775..db16aebd946c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -1233,6 +1233,12 @@ struct kvm_arch {
>> hpa_t hv_root_tdp;
>> spinlock_t hv_root_tdp_lock;
>> #endif
>> + /*
>> + * VM-scope maximum vCPU ID. Used to determine the size of structures
>> + * that increase along with the maximum vCPU ID, in which case, using
>> + * the global KVM_MAX_VCPU_IDS may lead to significant memory waste.
>> + */
>> + u32 max_vcpu_id;
> This should be max_vcpu_ids. I agree the it _should_ be max_vcpu_id, but KVM's API
> for this is awful and we're stuck with the plural name.
>
>> };
>>
>> struct kvm_vm_stat {
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> index 4f6fe9974cb5..ca17cc452bd3 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> @@ -5994,6 +5994,13 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm,
>> kvm->arch.exit_on_emulation_error = cap->args[0];
>> r = 0;
>> break;
>> + case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID:
> I think it makes sense to change kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension() to return the
> current max, it is a VM-scoped ioctl after all.
kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension() can return kvm->arch.max_vcpu_ids
as it reflects runtime capability supported on current vm. I will
change it.
> Amusingly, I think we also need a capability to enumerate that KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID
> is writable.
IIUC, KVM_CAP_* has intrinsic writable attribute. KVM will return invalid
If not implemented.
>> + if (cap->args[0] <= KVM_MAX_VCPU_IDS) {
>> + kvm->arch.max_vcpu_id = cap->args[0];
> This needs to be rejected if kvm->created_vcpus > 0, and that check needs to be
> done under kvm_lock, otherwise userspace can bump the max ID after KVM allocates
> per-VM structures and trigger buffer overflow.
Is it necessary to use kvm_lock ? Seems no use case to call it from multi-threads.
>> + r = 0;
>> + } else
> If-elif-else statements need curly braces for all paths if any path needs braces.
> Probably a moot point for this patch due to the above changes.
>
>> + r = -E2BIG;
> This should be -EINVAL, not -E2BIG.
>
> E.g.
>
> case KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPU_ID:
> r = -EINVAL;
> if (cap->args[0] > KVM_MAX_VCPU_IDS)
> break;
>
> mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> if (!kvm->created_vcpus) {
> kvm->arch.max_vcpu_id = cap->args[0];
> r = 0;
> }
> mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> break;
>
>
>> + break;
>> default:
>> r = -EINVAL;
>> break;
>> @@ -11067,6 +11074,9 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> struct page *page;
>> int r;
>>
>> + if (vcpu->vcpu_id >= vcpu->kvm->arch.max_vcpu_id)
>> + return -E2BIG;
> Same here, it should be -EINVAL.
>
>> +
>> vcpu->arch.last_vmentry_cpu = -1;
>> vcpu->arch.regs_avail = ~0;
>> vcpu->arch.regs_dirty = ~0;
>> @@ -11589,6 +11599,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
>> spin_lock_init(&kvm->arch.hv_root_tdp_lock);
>> kvm->arch.hv_root_tdp = INVALID_PAGE;
>> #endif
>> + kvm->arch.max_vcpu_id = KVM_MAX_VCPU_IDS;
>>
>> INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&kvm->arch.kvmclock_update_work, kvmclock_update_fn);
>> INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&kvm->arch.kvmclock_sync_work, kvmclock_sync_fn);
>> --
>> 2.27.0
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists