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;
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <41d956ab-3d25-2c2f-8b1a-2c49e03b4df4@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:33:07 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220402010903.727604-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20220402010903.727604-2-seanjc@google.com>
 <112c2108-7548-f5bd-493d-19b944701f1b@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <YkspIjFMwpMYWV05@google.com>
 <4505b43d-5c33-4199-1259-6d4e8ebac1ec@redhat.com>
 <98fca5c8-ca8e-be1f-857d-3d04041b66d7@maciej.szmigiero.name>
 <YmAxqrbMRx76Ye5a@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] KVM: nSVM: Sync next_rip field from vmcb12 to vmcb02
In-Reply-To: <YmAxqrbMRx76Ye5a@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/20/22 18:15, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> Let's just require X86_FEATURE_NRIPS, either in general or just to
>>> enable nested virtualiazation
>> ????
> Hmm, so requiring NRIPS for nested doesn't actually buy us anything.  KVM still
> has to deal with userspace hiding NRIPS from L1, so unless I'm overlooking something,
> the only change would be:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> index bdf8375a718b..7bed4e05aaea 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/nested.c
> @@ -686,7 +686,7 @@ static void nested_vmcb02_prepare_control(struct vcpu_svm *svm,
>           */
>          if (svm->nrips_enabled)
>                  vmcb02->control.next_rip    = svm->nested.ctl.next_rip;
> -       else if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_NRIPS))
> +       else
>                  vmcb02->control.next_rip    = vmcb12_rip;
> 
>          if (is_evtinj_soft(vmcb02->control.event_inj)) {
> 
> And sadly, because SVM doesn't provide the instruction length if an exit occurs
> while vectoring a software interrupt/exception, making NRIPS mandatory doesn't buy
> us much either.
> 
> I believe the below diff is the total savings (plus the above nested thing) against
> this series if NRIPS is mandatory (ignoring the setup code, which is a wash).  It
> does eliminate the rewind in svm_complete_soft_interrupt() and the funky logic in
> svm_update_soft_interrupt_rip(), but that's it AFAICT.  The most obnoxious code of
> having to unwind EMULTYPE_SKIP when retrieving the next RIP for software int/except
> injection doesn't go away:-(
> 
> I'm not totally opposed to requiring NRIPS, but I'm not in favor of it either.

Yeah, you're right.  However:

* the rewind might already be worth it;

* if we require NRIPS for nested, we can also assume that the SVM save 
state data has a valid next_rip; even if !svm->nrips_enabled.  There's 
the pesky issue of restoring from an old system that did not have NRIPS, 
but let's assume for now that NRIPS was set on the source as well.

Paolo