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;
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 18:14:42 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] KVM: VMX: Do not adverise RDPID if ENABLE_RDTSCP
 control is unsupported
Message-ID: <YJGPElJzMRGcyzAL@google.com>
References: <20210504171734.1434054-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20210504171734.1434054-2-seanjc@google.com>
 <CALMp9eToSSQ=8Dy4Vt5-GYEB4YB9c6-LTp8c60C97LOY9ufdjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMp9eQEP32pqFMtn2WZy1B_Aq1x-J52WhF2tC0dNd0vrdhmPg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eQEP32pqFMtn2WZy1B_Aq1x-J52WhF2tC0dNd0vrdhmPg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 04, 2021, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 10:37 AM Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 10:17 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Clear KVM's RDPID capability if the ENABLE_RDTSCP secondary exec control is
> > > unsupported.  Despite being enumerated in a separate CPUID flag, RDPID is
> > > bundled under the same VMCS control as RDTSCP and will #UD in VMX non-root
> > > if ENABLE_RDTSCP is not enabled.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 41cd02c6f7f6 ("kvm: x86: Expose RDPID in KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID")
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> >
> > But KVM will happily emulate RDPID if the instruction causes a #UD
> > VM-exit, won't it? See commit fb6d4d340e05 (KVM: x86: emulate RDPID).
> 
> Oh, after reading the second patch, I now see why this is needed.

Yeah.  Technically, once common x86 can query MSR_TSC_AUX support directly at
the end of the series, the emulation enumeration could be:

		if (kvm_is_supported_user_return_msr(MSR_TSC_AUX))
			entry->ecx = F(RDPID);

I think I actually meant to do that, then lost track of that TODO item when
reworking the series for the umpteenth time.

Practically speaking, the only way for kvm_is_supported_user_return_msr() to be
meaningful vs. kvm_cpu_cap_has() is if RDTSCP is supported in hardware but the
VMCS control is not available.  And I suppose there's also the case where
X86_FEATURE_RDTSCP was cleared by the kernel, but I feel like KVM should respect
the kernel's avoidance of RDTSCP/MSR_TSC_AUX in that case.  Regarding the silly
VMCS case, I have no objection to making the change, but I also don't care if we
sweep it under the rug.