Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220205081658.562208-1-leobras@redhat.com> <20220205081658.562208-2-leobras@redhat.com>
 <f2b0cac2-2f8a-60e8-616c-73825b3f62a6@redhat.com> <CAJ6HWG7DV-AeWyXxGwMMV61BejcCdpTc=U+4U6eY4gx4hfhP-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <8bf8ba96-94a8-663a-ccbf-ffeab087c370@redhat.com> <CAJ6HWG5sD06=ZMtrcSJ+O3ZH0xVeR7gC8+9o5hq+evXh43Vn_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <2b1d142e-e06c-3f38-32f5-d14de7dca289@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <2b1d142e-e06c-3f38-32f5-d14de7dca289@redhat.com>
From:   Leonardo Bras Soares Passos <leobras@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 23:14:34 -0300
Message-ID: <CAJ6HWG7rq8jemuaixSSyG_nd=Qr1PAqfGKApz8nUamiLeT5RWA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] x86/kvm/fpu: Mask guest fpstate->xfeatures with guest_supported_xcr0
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     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>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 7:59 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/7/22 23:45, Leonardo Bras Soares Passos wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 6:00 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/7/22 21:24, Leonardo Bras Soares Passos wrote:
> >>>> With this patch,
> >>>> we have to reason about the effect of calling KVM_SET_CPUID2 twice calls
> >>>> back to back.  I think an "&=" would be wrong in that case.
> >>>
> >>> So, you suggest something like this ?
> >>>
> >>> vcpu->arch.guest_fpu.fpstate->xfeatures =
> >>>          fpu_user_cfg.default_features & vcpu->arch.guest_supported_xcr0;
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, but you need to change user_xfeatures instead of xfeatures.
> >> KVM_GET_XSAVE and KVM_SET_XSAVE will take it into account automatically:
> >>
> >> - KVM_GET_XSAVE: fpu_copy_guest_fpstate_to_uabi -> __copy_xstate_to_uabi_buf
> >>
> >> - KVM_SET_XSAVE: fpu_copy_uabi_to_guest_fpstate ->
> >> copy_uabi_from_kernel_to_xstate -> copy_uabi_to_xstate ->
> >> validate_user_xstate_buffer
> >
> >
> > Ok, I understand how this replaces patch 2/2, so no issue on that.
> >
> > About patch 1/2,  you suggest that instead of fixing what we save in
> > the regs buffer, we fix only what we want to return to the user when
> > they call KVM_GET_XSAVE, is that correct?
>
> Yes, exactly.

Thanks! I will update my patch and send a v2 shortly.

I got really curious while I was debugging this issue:
- Is it ok that the cpu has other features enabled (like PKRU), while
our vcpu does not have them?
- Should guest OS always use the cpuid for checking features available?
- Would it be better if we could have exactly the same fpu features
enabled in the cpu, as we have in the vcpu?
- Why do we xsave with a mask different from what we xrstor ?

>
> Paolo
>