Message-ID: <226fc242-ae46-3214-4e01-dbfdf5f7c0fb@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 17:05:22 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/15] KVM: VMX: Add document to state that write to uret
 msr should always be intercepted
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
References: <20211118110814.2568-1-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
 <20211118110814.2568-6-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211118110814.2568-6-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/18/21 12:08, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
> 
> And adds a corresponding sanity check code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>   arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 10 +++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index e8a41fdc3c4d..cd081219b668 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -3703,13 +3703,21 @@ void vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, int type)
>   	if (!cpu_has_vmx_msr_bitmap())
>   		return;
>   
> +	/*
> +	 * Write to uret msr should always be intercepted due to the mechanism
> +	 * must know the current value.  Santity check to avoid any inadvertent
> +	 * mistake in coding.
> +	 */
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(vmx_find_uret_msr(vmx, msr) && (type & MSR_TYPE_W)))
> +		return;
> +

I'm not sure about this one, it's relatively expensive to call 
vmx_find_uret_msr.

User-return MSRs and disable-intercept MSRs are almost the opposite: 
uret is for MSRs that the host (not even the processor) never uses, 
disable-intercept is for MSRs that the guest reads/writes often.  As 
such it seems almost impossible that they overlap.

Paolo