Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6ce0aca5-5f5d-c21f-441f-c2db852b65e0@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 22:07:35 +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 5/6] x86/fpu: Provide fpu_update_guest_xcr0/xfd()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@intel.com>,
        "quintela@redhat.com" <quintela@redhat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        Jing Liu <jing2.liu@linux.intel.com>,
        "Zhong, Yang" <yang.zhong@intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@google.com>,
        "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
        "Zeng, Guang" <guang.zeng@intel.com>
References: <20211214022825.563892248@linutronix.de>
 <20211214024948.048572883@linutronix.de>
 <854480525e7f4f3baeba09ec6a864b80@intel.com> <87zgp3ry8i.ffs@tglx>
 <b3ac7ba45c984cf39783e33e0c25274d@intel.com> <87r1afrrjx.ffs@tglx>
 <87k0g7qa3t.fsf@secure.mitica> <87k0g7rkwj.ffs@tglx>
 <878rwm7tu8.fsf@secure.mitica> <afeba57f71f742b88aac3f01800086f9@intel.com>
 <878rwmrxgb.ffs@tglx> <a4fbf9f8-8876-f58c-d2b6-15add35bedd0@redhat.com>
 <8f37c8a3-1823-0e8f-dc24-6dbae5ce1535@redhat.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276F8C1F89911D4E04F8A9C8C779@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB5276F8C1F89911D4E04F8A9C8C779@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/16/21 06:36, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> 2) Do expansion at vCPU creation or KVM_ SET_CPUID2?
> 
> If the reallocation concept is still kept, then we feel doing expansion in
> KVM_SET_CPUID2 makes slightly more sense. There is no functional
> difference between two options since the guest is not running at this
> point. And in general Qemu should set prctl according to the cpuid bits.
> But since anyway we still need to check guest cpuid against guest perm in
> KVM_SET_CPUID2, it reads clearer to expand the buffer only after this
> check is passed.

Yes, that makes sense to me as well.  In principle userspace could call 
prctl only after KVM_CREATE_VCPU.

> 
> One option is to always disable WRMSR interception once 
> KVM_SET_CPUID2 succeeds, with the cost of one RDMSR per vm-exit. 
> But doing so affects legacy OS which even has no XFD logic at all.
> 
> The other option is to continue the current policy i.e. disable write 
> emulation only after the 1st interception of setting XFD to a non-zero 
> value. Then the RDMSR cost is added only for guest which supports XFD.

For this I suggest to implement the current policy, but place it at the 
end of the series so it's easy to drop it.

Paolo