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:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:15:31 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: x86: guest MAXPHYADDR and C-bit fixes
Message-ID: <YNUEA8n61WO89voW@google.com>
References: <20210623230552.4027702-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <324a95ee-b962-acdf-9bd7-b8b23b9fb991@amd.com>
 <c2d7a69a-386e-6f44-71c2-eb9a243c3a78@amd.com>
 <YNTBdvWxwyx3T+Cs@google.com>
 <2b79e962-b7de-4617-000d-f85890b7ea2c@amd.com>
 <7e3a90c0-75a1-b8fe-dbcf-bda16502ace9@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7e3a90c0-75a1-b8fe-dbcf-bda16502ace9@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 6/24/21 12:39 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 6/24/21 12:31 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's an explanation of the physical address reduction for bare-metal and
> >>>> guest.
> >>>>
> >>>> With MSR 0xC001_0010[SMEE] = 0:
> >>>>   No reduction in host or guest max physical address.
> >>>>
> >>>> With MSR 0xC001_0010[SMEE] = 1:
> >>>> - Reduction in the host is enumerated by CPUID 0x8000_001F_EBX[11:6],
> >>>>   regardless of whether SME is enabled in the host or not. So, for example
> >>>>   on EPYC generation 2 (Rome) you would see a reduction from 48 to 43.
> >>>> - There is no reduction in physical address in a legacy guest (non-SEV
> >>>>   guest), so the guest can use a 48-bit physical address
> >>
> >> So the behavior I'm seeing is either a CPU bug or user error.  Can you verify
> >> the unexpected #PF behavior to make sure I'm not doing something stupid?
> > 
> > Yeah, I saw that in patch #3. Let me see what I can find out. I could just
> > be wrong on that myself - it wouldn't be the first time.
> 
> From patch #3:
>   SVM: KVM: CPU #PF @ rip = 0x409ca4, cr2 = 0xc0000000, pfec = 0xb
>   KVM: guest PTE = 0x181023 @ GPA = 0x180000, level = 4
>   KVM: guest PTE = 0x186023 @ GPA = 0x181000, level = 3
>   KVM: guest PTE = 0x187023 @ GPA = 0x186000, level = 2
>   KVM: guest PTE = 0xffffbffff003 @ GPA = 0x187000, level = 1
>   SVM: KVM: GPA = 0x7fffbffff000
> 
> I think you may be hitting a special HT region that is at the top 12GB of
> the 48-bit memory range and is reserved, even for GPAs. Can you somehow
> get the test to use an address below 0xfffd_0000_0000? That would show
> that bit 47 is valid for the legacy guest while staying out of the HT region.

I can make that happen.

I assume "HT" is HyperTransport?