Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] x86/svm: Set IBPB when running a different VCPU
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com>
Cc: jmattson@google.com, dwmw@amazon.co.uk, bp@alien8.de,
        aliguori@amazon.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
References: <a8eef7f8-98f8-4ff1-a05f-6b5258dd3a4d@default>
 <b0f1aadc-2d07-d9a5-851c-081914a564bc@linux.intel.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <74e86dd8-804e-c9f2-098f-773283ac7065@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:17:40 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b0f1aadc-2d07-d9a5-851c-081914a564bc@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 09/01/2018 16:19, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 1/9/2018 7:00 AM, Liran Alon wrote:
>>
>> ----- arjan@linux.intel.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/9/2018 3:41 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>> The above ("IBRS simply disables the indirect branch predictor") was my
>>>> take-away message from private discussion with Intel.  My guess is that
>>>> the vendors are just handwaving a spec that doesn't match what they have
>>>> implemented, because honestly a microcode update is unlikely to do much
>>>> more than an old-fashioned chicken bit.  Maybe on Skylake it does
>>>> though, since the performance characteristics of IBRS are so different
>>>> from previous processors.  Let's ask Arjan who might have more
>>>> information about it, and hope he actually can disclose it...
>>>
>>> IBRS will ensure that, when set after the ring transition, no earlier
>>> branch prediction data is used for indirect branches while IBRS is
>>> set

Let me ask you my questions, which are independent of L0/L1/L2 terminology.

1) Is vmentry/vmexit considered a ring transition, even if the guest is
running in ring 0?  If IBRS=1 in the guest and the host is using IBRS,
the host will not do a wrmsr on exit.  Is this safe for the host kernel?

2) How will the future processors work where IBRS should always be =1?
Will they still need IBPB?  If I get a vmexit from a guest with IBRS=1,
and do a vmentry to the same VMCS *but with a different VPID*, will the
code running after the vmentry share BTB entries with code running
before the vmexit?

Thanks,

Paolo