[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z1A5QWaTswaQyE3k@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:13:05 +0800
From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
CC: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com"
<seanjc@...gle.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Li,
Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>, "Zhao,
Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com"
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
"binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com" <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>,
"dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"tony.lindgren@...ux.intel.com" <tony.lindgren@...ux.intel.com>,
"nik.borisov@...e.com" <nik.borisov@...e.com>, "Chatre, Reinette"
<reinette.chatre@...el.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] KVM: TDX: Add TSX_CTRL msr into uret_msrs list
On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 08:57:23AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>On 4/12/24 08:37, Chao Gao wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 08:18:32AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> On 4/12/24 03:25, Chao Gao wrote:
>>>>> +#define TDX_FEATURE_TSX (__feature_bit(X86_FEATURE_HLE) | __feature_bit(X86_FEATURE_RTM))
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static bool has_tsx(const struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return entry->function == 7 && entry->index == 0 &&
>>>>> + (entry->ebx & TDX_FEATURE_TSX);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void clear_tsx(struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + entry->ebx &= ~TDX_FEATURE_TSX;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static bool has_waitpkg(const struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return entry->function == 7 && entry->index == 0 &&
>>>>> + (entry->ecx & __feature_bit(X86_FEATURE_WAITPKG));
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void clear_waitpkg(struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + entry->ecx &= ~__feature_bit(X86_FEATURE_WAITPKG);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void tdx_clear_unsupported_cpuid(struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (has_tsx(entry))
>>>>> + clear_tsx(entry);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (has_waitpkg(entry))
>>>>> + clear_waitpkg(entry);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static bool tdx_unsupported_cpuid(const struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return has_tsx(entry) || has_waitpkg(entry);
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> No need to check TSX/WAITPKG explicitly because setup_tdparams_cpuids() already
>>>> ensures that unconfigurable bits are not set by userspace.
>>>
>>> Aren't they configurable?
>>
>> They are cleared from the configurable bitmap by tdx_clear_unsupported_cpuid(),
>> so they are not configurable from a userspace perspective. Did I miss anything?
>> KVM should check user inputs against its adjusted configurable bitmap, right?
>
>Maybe I misunderstand but we rely on the TDX module to reject
>invalid configuration. We don't check exactly what is configurable
>for the TDX Module.
Ok, this is what I missed. I thought KVM validated user input and masked
out all unsupported features. sorry for this.
>
>TSX and WAITPKG are not invalid for the TDX Module, but KVM
>must either support them by restoring their MSRs, or disallow
>them. This patch disallows them for now.
Yes. I agree. what if a new feature (supported by a future TDX module) also
needs KVM to restore some MSRs? current KVM will allow it to be exposed (since
only TSX/WAITPKG are checked); then some MSRs may get corrupted. I may think
this is not a good design. Current KVM should work with future TDX modules.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists