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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190620050301.1149-1-tao3.xu@intel.com> <CANRm+Cwg7ogTN1w=xNyn+8CfxwofdxRykULFe217pXidzEhh6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <f358c914-ae58-9889-a8ef-6ea9f3b2650e@linux.intel.com> <b3f76acd-cc7e-9cd7-d7f7-404ba756ab87@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <b3f76acd-cc7e-9cd7-d7f7-404ba756ab87@redhat.com>
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:27:26 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+Cy_oo7BkYXD-nc0Ro=rivJircL6aheuFujMv6twS3gk=g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: vmx: Fix the broken usage of vmx_xsaves_supported
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@linux.intel.com>,
        Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>, Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 16:17, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 20/06/19 08:46, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> >>
> >> It depends on whether or not processors support the 1-setting instead
> >> of =E2=80=9Cenable XSAVES/XRSTORS=E2=80=9D is 1 in VM-exection control=
 field. Anyway,
> >
> > Yes, whether this field exist or not depends on whether processors
> > support the 1-setting.
> >
> > But if "enable XSAVES/XRSTORS" is clear to 0, XSS_EXIT_BITMAP doesn't
> > work. I think in this case, there is no need to set this vmcs field?
>
> vmx->secondary_exec_control can change; you are making the code more
> complex by relying on the value of the field at the point of vmx_vcpu_set=
up.
>
> I do _think_ your version is incorrect, because at this point CPUID has
> not been initialized yet and therefore
> vmx_compute_secondary_exec_control has not set SECONDARY_EXEC_XSAVES.
> However I may be wrong because I didn't review the code very closely:
> the old code is obvious and so there is no point in changing it.

Agreed, in addition, guest can enable/disable cpuid bits by grub
parameter, should we call kvm_x86_ops->cpuid_update() in
kvm_vcpu_reset() path to reflect the new guest cpuid influence to
exec_control? e.g. the first boot guest disable xsaves in grub, kvm
disables xsaves in exec_control; then guest reboot w/ xsaves enabled,
it still get an #UD when executing.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li