Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: cRGmLJiX0n/Do3G8nzfMU81smu2WkWmGfWAv48X2BjUyilnUXHYkiT832cwVz+smWIXiZ+Vryf
 GJaZxrfGcb8w==
IronPort-SDR: AydWLUVT46cugw3UxVmdM8M0jl+24qxMomY1k50gvYxuYrKgvAo9aIvxqNZlcAxTBVup3TJqGw
 WzOWEh+yRwqA==
Date:   Tue, 7 Jul 2020 01:26:24 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: rewrite kvm_spec_ctrl_valid_bits
Message-ID: <20200707082624.GB7417@linux.intel.com>
References: <20200702174455.282252-1-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
 <20200702181606.GF3575@linux.intel.com>
 <3793ae0da76fe00036ed0205b5ad8f1653f58ef2.camel@redhat.com>
 <20200707061105.GH5208@linux.intel.com>
 <7c1d9bbe-5f59-5b86-01e9-43c929b24218@redhat.com>
 <20200707081444.GA7417@linux.intel.com>
 <e5da32da-6cb2-85b1-a12b-da796843d2bb@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e5da32da-6cb2-85b1-a12b-da796843d2bb@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:17:14AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/07/20 10:14, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >>> One oddity with this whole thing is that by passing through the MSR, KVM is
> >>> allowing the guest to write bits it doesn't know about, which is definitely
> >>> not normal.  It also means the guest could write bits that the host VMM
> >>> can't.
> >> That's true.  However, the main purpose of the kvm_spec_ctrl_valid_bits
> >> check is to ensure that host-initiated writes are valid; this way, you
> >> don't get a #GP on the next vmentry's WRMSR to MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL.
> >> Checking the guest CPUID bit is not even necessary.
> > Right, what I'm saying is that rather than try and decipher specs to
> > determine what bits are supported, just throw the value at hardware and
> > go from there.  That's effectively what we end up doing for the guest writes
> > anyways.
> 
> Yes, it would prevent the #GP.
> 
> > Actually, the current behavior will break migration if there are ever legal
> > bits that KVM doesn't recognize, e.g. guest writes a value that KVM doesn't
> > allow and then migration fails when the destination tries to stuff the value
> > into KVM.
> 
> Yes, unfortunately migration would also be broken if the target (and the
> guest CPUID) is an older CPU.  But that's not something we can fix
> without trapping all writes which would be unacceptably slow.

Ah, true, the guest would need to be setting bits that weren't enumerated
to it.