Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-40498-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b83ab45c5e239e5d148b0ae7750133a67ac9575c.1706127425.git.maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <b83ab45c5e239e5d148b0ae7750133a67ac9575c.1706127425.git.maciej.szmigiero@oracle.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 19:36:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CABgObfZ1YzigovNEiYF7pbmRxv-SUzEFqnpaQZ4GT_hDssm65g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Give a hint when Win2016 might fail to boot due
 to XSAVES erratum
To: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>, Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:18=E2=80=AFPM Maciej S. Szmigiero
<mail@maciej.szmigiero.name> wrote:
> +static void kvm_hv_xsaves_xsavec_maybe_warn_unlocked(struct kvm_vcpu *vc=
pu)

Calling this function "unlocked" is confusing (others would say
"locked" is confusing instead). The double-underscore convention is
more common.

> +{
> +       struct kvm *kvm =3D vcpu->kvm;
> +       struct kvm_hv *hv =3D to_kvm_hv(kvm);
> +
> +       if (hv->xsaves_xsavec_warned)
> +               return;
> +
> +       if (!vcpu->arch.hyperv_enabled)
> +               return;

I think these two should be in kvm_hv_xsaves_xsavec_maybe_warn(),
though the former needs to be checked again under the lock.

> +       if ((hv->hv_guest_os_id & KVM_HV_WIN2016_GUEST_ID_MASK) !=3D
> +           KVM_HV_WIN2016_GUEST_ID)
> +               return;

At this point there is no need to return. You can set
xsaves_xsavec_warned and save the checks in the future.

> +       /* UP configurations aren't affected */
> +       if (atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus) < 2)
> +               return;
> +
> +       if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVES) ||
> +           !guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_XSAVEC))
> +               return;

boot_cpu_has can also be done first to cull the whole check.

> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 27e23714e960..db0a2c40d749 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -1782,6 +1782,10 @@ static int set_efer
>        if ((efer ^ old_efer) & KVM_MMU_EFER_ROLE_BITS)
>                kvm_mmu_reset_context(vcpu);
>
> +       if (guest_cpuid_is_amd_or_hygon(vcpu) &&
> +           efer & EFER_SVME)
> +               kvm_hv_xsaves_xsavec_maybe_warn(vcpu);
> +
>        return 0;
> }

Checking guest_cpuid_is_amd_or_hygon() is relatively expensive, it
should be done after "efer & EFER_SVME" but really the bug can happen
just as well on Intel as far as I understand? It's just less likely
due to the AMD erratum.

I'll send a v2.

Paolo