Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <6d01c59eab7f31eef1b4249a85869600410336b7.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM: x86: hyper-v: HVCALL_SEND_IPI_EX is an XMM
 fast hypercall
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Siddharth Chandrasekaran <sidcha@amazon.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Fri, 25 Feb 2022 20:33:52 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20220222154642.684285-5-vkuznets@redhat.com>
References: <20220222154642.684285-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
         <20220222154642.684285-5-vkuznets@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5 (3.36.5-2.fc32) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 16:46 +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> It has been proven on practice that at least Windows Server 2019 tries
> using HVCALL_SEND_IPI_EX in 'XMM fast' mode when it has more than 64 vCPUs
> and it needs to send an IPI to a vCPU > 63. Similarly to other XMM Fast
> hypercalls (HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_{LIST,SPACE}{,_EX}), this
> information is missing in TLFS as of 6.0b. Currently, KVM returns an error
> (HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT) and Windows crashes.
> 
> Note, HVCALL_SEND_IPI is a 'standard' fast hypercall (not 'XMM fast') as
> all its parameters fit into RDX:R8 and this is handled by KVM correctly.
> 
> Fixes: d8f5537a8816 ("KVM: hyper-v: Advertise support for fast XMM hypercalls")
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> index 6dda93bf98ae..3060057bdfd4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> @@ -1890,6 +1890,7 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
>  	int sparse_banks_len;
>  	u32 vector;
>  	bool all_cpus;
> +	int i;
>  
>  	if (hc->code == HVCALL_SEND_IPI) {
>  		if (!hc->fast) {
> @@ -1910,9 +1911,15 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
>  
>  		trace_kvm_hv_send_ipi(vector, sparse_banks[0]);
>  	} else {
> -		if (unlikely(kvm_read_guest(kvm, hc->ingpa, &send_ipi_ex,
> -					    sizeof(send_ipi_ex))))
> -			return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
> +		if (!hc->fast) {
> +			if (unlikely(kvm_read_guest(kvm, hc->ingpa, &send_ipi_ex,
> +						    sizeof(send_ipi_ex))))
> +				return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
> +		} else {
> +			send_ipi_ex.vector = (u32)hc->ingpa;
> +			send_ipi_ex.vp_set.format = hc->outgpa;
> +			send_ipi_ex.vp_set.valid_bank_mask = sse128_lo(hc->xmm[0]);
> +		}
>  
>  		trace_kvm_hv_send_ipi_ex(send_ipi_ex.vector,
>  					 send_ipi_ex.vp_set.format,
> @@ -1920,8 +1927,7 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
>  
>  		vector = send_ipi_ex.vector;
>  		valid_bank_mask = send_ipi_ex.vp_set.valid_bank_mask;
> -		sparse_banks_len = bitmap_weight(&valid_bank_mask, 64) *
> -			sizeof(sparse_banks[0]);
> +		sparse_banks_len = bitmap_weight(&valid_bank_mask, 64);
Is this change intentional? 

I haven't fully reviewed this, because kvm/queue seem to have a bit different
version of this, and I didn't fully follow on all of this.

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky

>  
>  		all_cpus = send_ipi_ex.vp_set.format == HV_GENERIC_SET_ALL;
>  
> @@ -1931,12 +1937,27 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_send_ipi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
>  		if (!sparse_banks_len)
>  			goto ret_success;
>  
> -		if (kvm_read_guest(kvm,
> -				   hc->ingpa + offsetof(struct hv_send_ipi_ex,
> -							vp_set.bank_contents),
> -				   sparse_banks,
> -				   sparse_banks_len))
> -			return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
> +		if (!hc->fast) {
> +			if (kvm_read_guest(kvm,
> +					   hc->ingpa + offsetof(struct hv_send_ipi_ex,
> +								vp_set.bank_contents),
> +					   sparse_banks,
> +					   sparse_banks_len * sizeof(sparse_banks[0])))
> +				return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
> +		} else {
> +			/*
> +			 * The lower half of XMM0 is already consumed, each XMM holds
> +			 * two sparse banks.
> +			 */
> +			if (sparse_banks_len > (2 * HV_HYPERCALL_MAX_XMM_REGISTERS - 1))
> +				return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
> +			for (i = 0; i < sparse_banks_len; i++) {
> +				if (i % 2)
> +					sparse_banks[i] = sse128_lo(hc->xmm[(i + 1) / 2]);
> +				else
> +					sparse_banks[i] = sse128_hi(hc->xmm[i / 2]);
> +			}
> +		}
>  	}
>  
>  check_and_send_ipi:
> @@ -2098,6 +2119,7 @@ static bool is_xmm_fast_hypercall(struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
>  	case HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_SPACE:
>  	case HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_LIST_EX:
>  	case HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_SPACE_EX:
> +	case HVCALL_SEND_IPI_EX:
>  		return true;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -2265,14 +2287,8 @@ int kvm_hv_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		ret = kvm_hv_flush_tlb(vcpu, &hc);
>  		break;
>  	case HVCALL_SEND_IPI:
> -		if (unlikely(hc.rep)) {
> -			ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
> -			break;
> -		}
> -		ret = kvm_hv_send_ipi(vcpu, &hc);
> -		break;
>  	case HVCALL_SEND_IPI_EX:
> -		if (unlikely(hc.fast || hc.rep)) {
> +		if (unlikely(hc.rep)) {
>  			ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
>  			break;
>  		}