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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: VMX: Make smaller physical guest address space
 support user-configurable
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@redhat.com>
Cc:     kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
References: <20200903141122.72908-1-mgamal@redhat.com>
 <CALMp9eTrc8_z3pKBtLVmbnMvC+KtzXMYbYTXZPPz5F0UWW8oNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <00b0f9eb-286b-72e8-40b5-02f9576f2ce3@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 20:03:27 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eTrc8_z3pKBtLVmbnMvC+KtzXMYbYTXZPPz5F0UWW8oNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 03/09/20 19:57, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:12 AM Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@redhat.com> wrote:
>> This patch exposes allow_smaller_maxphyaddr to the user as a module parameter.
>>
>> Since smaller physical address spaces are only supported on VMX, the parameter
>> is only exposed in the kvm_intel module.
>> Modifications to VMX page fault and EPT violation handling will depend on whether
>> that parameter is enabled.
>>
>> Also disable support by default, and let the user decide if they want to enable
>> it.
>
> I think a smaller guest physical address width *should* be allowed.
> However, perhaps the pedantic adherence to the architectural
> specification could be turned on or off per-VM? And, if we're going to
> be pedantic, I think we should go all the way and get MOV-to-CR3
> correct.

That would be way too slow.  Even the current trapping of present #PF
can introduce some slowdown depending on the workload.

> Does the typical guest care about whether or not setting any of the
> bits 51:46 in a PFN results in a fault?

At least KVM with shadow pages does, which is a bit niche but it shows
that you cannot really rely on no one doing it.  As you guessed, the
main usage of the feature is for machines with 5-level page tables where
there are no reserved bits; emulating smaller MAXPHYADDR allows
migrating VMs from 4-level page-table hosts.

Enabling per-VM would not be particularly useful IMO because if you want
to disable this code you can just set host MAXPHYADDR = guest
MAXPHYADDR, which should be the common case unless you want to do that
kind of Skylake to Icelake (or similar) migration.

Paolo