Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 11:29:13 -0400
From:   Tyler Stachecki <stachecki.tyler@gmail.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>,
        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,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM: x86: Fix breakage in KVM_SET_XSAVE's ABI
Message-ID: <ZR2EyUULbRpXW8wK@luigi.stachecki.net>
References: <20230928001956.924301-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <ZR0QOGo5DftkRWsr@redhat.com>
 <ZR1Yt6Z+dhMbn/FJ@luigi.stachecki.net>
 <ZR175enUCh3KkAU6@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZR175enUCh3KkAU6@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 07:51:17AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> KVM's ABI has no formal notion of guest boot=>shutdown or live migration.  The
> myriad KVM_GET_* APIs allow taking a snapshot of guest state, and the KVM_SET_*
> APIs allow loading a snapshot of guest state.  Live migration is probably the most
> common use of those APIs, but there are other use cases.

I think the lightbulb just clicked, it is really this:

> No, the VM will not have less features, because KVM_SET_XSAVE loads *data*, not
> features [...]

I think I'm conflating the data vs. features aspect here and will have to
revisit my understanding of the code...

> > Ultimately, this problem is not really fixable if said features cannot be
> > removed.

> It's not about removing features.  The change you're asking for is to have KVM
> *silently* drop data.  Aside from the fact that such a change would break KVM's
> ABI, silently ignoring data that userspace has explicitly requested be loaded for
> a vCPU is incredibly dangerous.

Sorry if it came off that way - I fully understand and am resigned to the "you
break it, you keep both halves" nature of what I had initially proposed and
that it is not a generally tractable solution.

That being said, I genuinely appreciate your jump to action on this problem!

Thanks,
Tyler