MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7d96bfb5-99c3-da31-0094-23097e3faec2@redhat.com>
References: <20180109120311.27565-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20180109120311.27565-7-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <20180109142242.GD18661@char.us.oracle.com> <7d96bfb5-99c3-da31-0094-23097e3faec2@redhat.com>
From: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:45:27 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+Cwd9rToNKStJyUxvDNpV8iZX-VaMZ_a8sFeBcfx6T5OfA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] kvm: svm: pass MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL and
 MSR_IA32_PRED_CMD down to guest
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Anthony Liguori <aliguori@amazon.com>, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        dwmw@amazon.co.uk, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

2018-01-10 0:08 GMT+08:00 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>:
> Oops, I missed these.
>
> On 09/01/2018 15:22, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> +    if (have_spec_ctrl) {
>>> +            rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, svm->spec_ctrl);
>>> +            if (svm->spec_ctrl != 0)
>> Perhaps just :
>>
>>       if (svm->spec_ctrl) ?
>>
>> And above too?
>
> These will become != SPEC_CTRL_ENABLE_IBRS or something like that.
>
>>> +                    wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, 0);
>>> +    }
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * Speculative execution past the above wrmsrl might encounter
>>> +     * an indirect branch and use guest-controlled contents of the
>>> +     * indirect branch predictor; block it.
>>> +     */
>>> +    asm("lfence");
>> Don't you want this to be part of the if () .. else part?
>
> Not right now, because the processor could speculate that have_spec_ctrl
> == 0 and skip the wrmsrl.  After it becomes a static_cpu_has, it could
> move inside, but only if the kernel is compiled with static keys enabled.
>
>> Meaning:
>>
>>       if (have_spec_ctrl && svm->spec_ctrl)
>>               wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, 0);
>>       else
>>               asm("lfence");
>>
>> But .. I am missing something - AMD don't expose 0x48. They expose only 0x49.
>>
>> That is only the IPBP is needed on AMD? (I haven't actually seen any official
>> docs from AMD).
>
> AMD is not exposing 0x48 yet, but they plan to based on my information
> from a few weeks ago.

Haha, interesting, they announce officially there is no issue for
variant 2. http://www.amd.com/en/corporate/speculative-execution

Regards,
Wanpeng Li