DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 8DCDD20274
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: simplify handling of PKRU
To: Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: junkang.fjk@alibaba-inc.com
References: <1503523566-25624-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <1503523566-25624-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <8b7cd59e-05b9-e8c4-b686-8a3fda88c191@gmail.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <40adf946-79ad-87cd-8bfd-6db4dfdbefc3@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:19:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8b7cd59e-05b9-e8c4-b686-8a3fda88c191@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 937
Lines: 26

On 24/08/2017 11:09, Yang Zhang wrote:
>> +    if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE) &&
> 
> We expose protection key to VM without check whether OSPKE is enabled or
> not. Why not check guest's cpuid here which also can avoid unnecessary
> access to pkru?

Checking guest CPUID is pretty slow.  We could check CR4.PKE though.

Also, using static_cpu_has with OSPKE is probably wrong.  But if we do
check CR4.PKE, we can check X86_FEATURE_PKU instead, so something like

	if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PKU) &&
	    kvm_read_cr4_bits(vcpu, X86_CR4_PKE) &&
	    vcpu->arch.pkru != vmx->host_pkru)

... but then, kvm_read_cr4_bits is also pretty slow---and we don't
really need it, since all CR4 writes cause a vmexit.  So for now I'd
stay with this patch, only s/static_cpu_has/boot_cpu_has/g.

Of course you can send improvements on top!

Paolo

>> +        vcpu->arch.pkru != vmx->host_pkru)
>> +        __write_pkru(vcpu->arch.pkru);