[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4c0cd892-8b7c-451b-9c04-2e83f33bef0f@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:36:21 +0800
From: "Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] KVM: x86: Suppress failures on userspace access to
advertised, unsupported MSRs
On 4/26/2024 2:14 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Extend KVM's suppression of failures due to a userspace access to an
> unsupported, but advertised as a "to save" MSR to all MSRs, not just those
> that happen to reach the default case statements in kvm_get_msr_common()
> and kvm_set_msr_common(). KVM's soon-to-be-established ABI is that if an
> MSR is advertised to userspace, then userspace is allowed to read the MSR,
> and write back the value that was read, i.e. why an MSR is unsupported
> doesn't change KVM's ABI.
>
> Practically speaking, this is very nearly a nop, as the only other paths
> that return KVM_MSR_RET_UNSUPPORTED are {svm,vmx}_get_feature_msr(), and
> it's unlikely, though not impossible, that userspace is using KVM_GET_MSRS
> on unsupported MSRs.
>
> The primary goal of moving the suppression to common code is to allow
> returning KVM_MSR_RET_UNSUPPORTED as appropriate throughout KVM, without
> having to manually handle the "is userspace accessing an advertised"
> waiver. I.e. this will allow formalizing KVM's ABI without incurring a
> high maintenance cost.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 27 +++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 04a5ae853774..4c91189342ff 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -527,6 +527,15 @@ static __always_inline int kvm_do_msr_access(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr,
> if (ret != KVM_MSR_RET_UNSUPPORTED)
> return ret;
>
> + /*
> + * Userspace is allowed to read MSRs, and write '0' to MSRs, that KVM
> + * reports as to-be-saved, even if an MSR isn't fully supported.
> + * Simply check that @data is '0', which covers both the write '0' case
> + * and all reads (in which case @data is zeroed on failure; see above).
> + */
> + if (host_initiated && !*data && kvm_is_msr_to_save(msr))
> + return 0;
> +
IMHO, it's worth to document above phrase into virt/kvm/api.rst KVM_{GET, SET}_MSRS
sections as a note because when users space reads/writes MSRs successfully, it doesn't
necessarily mean the operation really took effect. Maybe it's just due to the fact they're
exposed in "to-be-saved" list.
> if (!ignore_msrs) {
> kvm_debug_ratelimited("unhandled %s: 0x%x data 0x%llx\n",
> op, msr, *data);
> @@ -4163,14 +4172,6 @@ int kvm_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> if (kvm_pmu_is_valid_msr(vcpu, msr))
> return kvm_pmu_set_msr(vcpu, msr_info);
>
> - /*
> - * Userspace is allowed to write '0' to MSRs that KVM reports
> - * as to-be-saved, even if an MSRs isn't fully supported.
> - */
> - if (msr_info->host_initiated && !data &&
> - kvm_is_msr_to_save(msr))
> - break;
> -
> return KVM_MSR_RET_UNSUPPORTED;
> }
> return 0;
> @@ -4522,16 +4523,6 @@ int kvm_get_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
> if (kvm_pmu_is_valid_msr(vcpu, msr_info->index))
> return kvm_pmu_get_msr(vcpu, msr_info);
>
> - /*
> - * Userspace is allowed to read MSRs that KVM reports as
> - * to-be-saved, even if an MSR isn't fully supported.
> - */
> - if (msr_info->host_initiated &&
> - kvm_is_msr_to_save(msr_info->index)) {
> - msr_info->data = 0;
> - break;
> - }
> -
> return KVM_MSR_RET_UNSUPPORTED;
> }
> return 0;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists