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;
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com>,
        Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] x86/kvm/hyper-v: move VMX controls sanitization out of nested_enable_evmcs()
In-Reply-To: <9c126d75-225b-3b1b-d97a-bcec1f189e02@redhat.com>
References: <20200115171014.56405-1-vkuznets@redhat.com> <20200115171014.56405-3-vkuznets@redhat.com> <6c4bdb57-08fb-2c2d-9234-b7efffeb72ed@redhat.com> <20200122054724.GD18513@linux.intel.com> <9c126d75-225b-3b1b-d97a-bcec1f189e02@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:08:55 +0100
Message-ID: <87eevrsf3s.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:

> On 22/01/20 06:47, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> Yes, it most likely is and it would be nice if Microsoft fixed it, but I
>>> guess we're stuck with it for existing Windows versions.  Well, for one
>>> we found a bug in Hyper-V and not the converse. :)
>>>
>>> There is a problem with this approach, in that we're stuck with it
>>> forever due to live migration.  But I guess if in the future eVMCS v2
>>> adds an apic_address field we can limit the hack to eVMCS v1.  Another
>>> possibility is to use the quirks mechanism but it's overkill for now.
>>>
>>> Unless there are objections, I plan to apply these patches.
>> Doesn't applying this patch contradict your earlier opinion?  This patch
>> would still hide the affected controls from the guest because the host
>> controls enlightened_vmcs_enabled.
>
> It does.  Unfortunately the key sentence is "we're stuck with it for
> existing Windows versions". :(
>
>> Rather than update vmx->nested.msrs or filter vmx_get_msr(), what about
>> manually adding eVMCS consistency checks on the disallowed bits and handle
>> SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES as a one-off case by simply
>> clearing it from the eVMCS?  Or alternatively, squashing all the disallowed
>> bits.
>
> Hmm, that is also a possibility.  It's a very hacky one, but I guess
> adding APIC virtualization to eVMCS would require bumping the version to
> 2.  Vitaly, what do you think?

As I already replied to Sean I like the idea to filter out unsupported
controls from eVMCS but unfortunately it doesn't work: Hyper-V actually
expects APIC virtualization to work when it enables
SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_APIC_ACCESSES (I have no idea how without
apic_access_addr field but). I checked and at least Hyper-V 2016 doesn't
boot (when >1 vCPU).

-- 
Vitaly