Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 19:51:01 +0800
From:   Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
To:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 02/19] KVM: x86: inhibit APICv/AVIC when the guest
 and/or host changes apic id/base from the defaults.
Message-ID: <20220518115056.GA18087@gao-cwp>
References: <20220427200314.276673-1-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
 <20220427200314.276673-3-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
 <20220518082811.GA8765@gao-cwp>
 <8c78939bf01a98554696add10e17b07631d97a28.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8c78939bf01a98554696add10e17b07631d97a28.camel@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:50:27PM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>> > struct kvm_arch {
>> > @@ -1258,6 +1260,7 @@ struct kvm_arch {
>> > 	hpa_t	hv_root_tdp;
>> > 	spinlock_t hv_root_tdp_lock;
>> > #endif
>> > +	bool apic_id_changed;
>> 
>> What's the value of this boolean? No one reads it.
>
>I use it in later patches to kill the guest during nested VM entry 
>if it attempts to use nested AVIC after any vCPU changed APIC ID.
>
>I mentioned this boolean in the commit description.
>
>This boolean avoids the need to go over all vCPUs and checking
>if they still have the initial apic id.

Do you want to kill the guest if APIC base got changed? If yes,
you can check if APICV_INHIBIT_REASON_RO_SETTINGS is set and save
the boolean.

>
>In the future maybe we can introduce a more generic 'taint'
>bitmap with various flags like that, indicating that the guest
>did something unexpected.
>
>BTW, the other option in regard to the nested AVIC is just to ignore this issue completely.
>The code itself always uses vcpu_id's, thus regardless of when/how often the guest changes
>its apic ids, my code would just use the initial APIC ID values consistently.
>
>In this case I won't need this boolean.
>
>> 
>> > };
>> > 
>> > struct kvm_vm_stat {
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
>> > index 66b0eb0bda94e..8996675b3ef4c 100644
>> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
>> > @@ -2038,6 +2038,19 @@ static void apic_manage_nmi_watchdog(struct kvm_lapic *apic, u32 lvt0_val)
>> > 	}
>> > }
>> > 
>> > +static void kvm_lapic_check_initial_apic_id(struct kvm_lapic *apic)
>> > +{
>> > +	if (kvm_apic_has_initial_apic_id(apic))
>> > +		return;
>> > +
>> > +	pr_warn_once("APIC ID change is unsupported by KVM");
>> 
>> It is misleading because changing xAPIC ID is supported by KVM; it just
>> isn't compatible with APICv. Probably this pr_warn_once() should be
>> removed.
>
>Honestly since nobody uses this feature, I am not sure if to call this supported,
>I am sure that KVM has more bugs in regard of using non standard APIC ID.
>This warning might hopefuly make someone complain about it if this
>feature is actually used somewhere.

Now I got you. It is fine to me.