Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] KVM: x86: Add a framework for supporting MSR-based
 features
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
References: <20180215231156.31016.79657.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net>
 <20180215231206.31016.78914.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net>
 <00583b68-d599-b709-133a-3741c258df13@redhat.com>
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Message-ID: <7f6a78ae-abab-2a03-aebd-e43e6fe168b4@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Feb 2018 08:15:36 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <00583b68-d599-b709-133a-3741c258df13@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: amd.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2018 14:15:43.6574 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0f3e5ca1-231e-4b71-8130-08d579359874
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR12MB1143
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 2/21/2018 5:41 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 16/02/2018 00:12, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> +static u32 msr_based_features[] = {
>> +};
>> +
>> +static unsigned int num_msr_based_features = ARRAY_SIZE(msr_based_features);
>> +
>>  bool kvm_valid_efer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 efer)
>>  {
>>  	if (efer & efer_reserved_bits)
>> @@ -2785,6 +2794,7 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
>>  	case KVM_CAP_SET_BOOT_CPU_ID:
>>   	case KVM_CAP_SPLIT_IRQCHIP:
>>  	case KVM_CAP_IMMEDIATE_EXIT:
>> +	case KVM_CAP_GET_MSR_FEATURES:
>>  		r = 1;
>>  		break;
>>  	case KVM_CAP_ADJUST_CLOCK:
>> @@ -4410,6 +4420,47 @@ long kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(struct file *filp,
>>  			r = kvm_x86_ops->mem_enc_unreg_region(kvm, &region);
>>  		break;
>>  	}
>> +	case KVM_GET_MSR_INDEX_LIST: {
>> +		struct kvm_msr_list __user *user_msr_list = argp;
>> +		struct kvm_msr_list msr_list;
>> +		unsigned int n;
>> +
>> +		r = -EFAULT;
>> +		if (copy_from_user(&msr_list, user_msr_list, sizeof(msr_list)))
>> +			goto out;
>> +		n = msr_list.nmsrs;
>> +		msr_list.nmsrs = num_msr_based_features;
>> +		if (copy_to_user(user_msr_list, &msr_list, sizeof(msr_list)))
>> +			goto out;
>> +		r = -E2BIG;
>> +		if (n < msr_list.nmsrs)
>> +			goto out;
>> +		r = -EFAULT;
>> +		if (copy_to_user(user_msr_list->indices, &msr_based_features,
>> +				 num_msr_based_features * sizeof(u32)))
>> +			goto out;
>> +		r = 0;
>> +		break;
> 
> I think it's better to have some logic in kvm_init_msr_list, to filter
> the MSR list based on whatever MSRs the backend provides.

Ok, that's what I had originally and then you said to just return the full
list and let KVM_GET_MSR return a 0 or 1 if it was supported. I can switch
it back.

> 
>> +	}
>> +	case KVM_GET_MSR: {
> 
> It's not that the API isn't usable, KVM_GET_MSR is fine for what we need
> here (it's not a fast path), but it's a bit confusing to have
> KVM_GET_MSR and KVM_GET_MSRS.
> 
> I see two possibilities:
> 
> 1) reuse KVM_GET_MSRS as in the previous version.  It's okay to
> cut-and-paste code from msr_io.

If I go back to trimming the list based on support, then KVM_GET_MSRS can
be used.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> 2) find a name for KVM_GET_MSR that is better and different from
> KVM_GET_MSRS.  KVM_GET_HOST_MSR or KVM_GET_HOST_FEATURE_MSR come to
> mind, but I'm obviously open to other suggestions.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Paolo
> 
>> +		struct kvm_msr_entry __user *user_msr = argp;
>> +		struct kvm_msr_entry msr;
>> +
>> +		r = -EFAULT;
>> +		if (copy_from_user(&msr, user_msr, sizeof(msr)))
>> +			goto out;
>> +
>> +		r = 1;
>> +		if (!kvm_x86_ops->msr_feature || kvm_x86_ops->msr_feature(&msr))
>> +			goto out;
>> +
>> +		r = -EFAULT;
>> +		if (copy_to_user(user_msr, &msr, sizeof(msr)))
>> +			goto out;
>> +
>> +		r = 0;
>> +		break;
>> +	}
>