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:   Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:31:48 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter H Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@kernel.org>,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/12] x86/tdx: Don't write CSTAR MSR on Intel
Message-ID: <YQrdFLPaUnC8Q5bn@google.com>
References: <20210804181329.2899708-1-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
 <20210804181329.2899708-12-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210804181329.2899708-12-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 04, 2021, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> 
> On Intel CPUs writing the CSTAR MSR is not really needed. Syscalls
> from 32bit work using SYSENTER and 32bit SYSCALL is an illegal opcode.
> But the kernel did write it anyways even though it was ignored by
> the CPU. Inside a TDX guest this actually leads to a #GP. While the #GP
> is caught and recovered from, it prints an ugly message at boot.
> Do not write the CSTAR MSR on Intel CPUs.

Not that it really matters, but...

Is #GP the actual TDX-Module behavior?  If so, isn't that a contradiction with
respect to the TDX-Module architecture?  It says:

  guest TD access violations to MSRs can cause a #GP(0) in most cases where the
  MSR is enumerated as inaccessible by the Intel TDX module via CPUID
  virtualization.  In other cases, guest TD access violations to MSRs can cause
  a #VE.

Given that there is no dedicated CPUID flag for CSTAR and CSTAR obviously exists
on Intel CPUs, I don't see how the TDX-Module can possible enumerate CSTAR as
being inaccessible.

Regardless of #GP versus #VE, "Table 16.2 MSR Virtualization" needs to state the
actual behavior.