From: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc: Robert Hoo <robert.hu@linux.intel.com>,
pbonzini@redhat.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com,
joro@8bytes.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] KVM: x86: nVMX: VMCS12 field's read/write respects field existence bitmap
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 16:23:02 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211008082302.txckaasmsystigeu@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YVzeJ59/yCpqgTX2@google.com>
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 11:22:15PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:50 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2021, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:59 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2021, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:16 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021, Robert Hoo wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 2021-09-03 at 15:11 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > > > > > You also said, "This is quite the complicated mess for
> > > > > > > > something I'm guessing no one actually cares about. At what point do
> > > > > > > > we chalk this up as a virtualization hole and sweep it under the rug?"
> > > > > > > > -- I couldn't agree more.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, Sean, can you help converge our discussion and settle next step?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any objection to simply keeping KVM's current behavior, i.e. sweeping this under
> > > > > > > the proverbial rug?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adding 8 KiB per vCPU seems like no big deal to me, but, on the other
> > > > > > hand, Paolo recently argued that slightly less than 1 KiB per vCPU was
> > > > > > unreasonable for VM-exit statistics, so maybe I've got a warped
> > > > > > perspective. I'm all for pedantic adherence to the specification, but
> > > > > > I have to admit that no actual hypervisor is likely to care (or ever
> > > > > > will).
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not just the memory, it's also the complexity, e.g. to get VMCS shadowing
> > > > > working correctly, both now and in the future.
> > > >
> > > > As far as CPU feature virtualization goes, this one doesn't seem that
> > > > complex to me. It's not anywhere near as complex as virtualizing MTF,
> > > > for instance, and KVM *claims* to do that! :-)
> > >
> > > There aren't many things as complex as MTF. But unlike MTF, this behavior doesn't
> > > have a concrete use case to justify the risk vs. reward. IMO the odds of us breaking
> > > something in KVM for "normal" use cases are higher than the odds of an L1 VMM breaking
> > > because a VMREAD/VMWRITE didn't fail when it technically should have failed.
> >
> > Playing devil's advocate here, because I totally agree with you...
> >
> > Who's to say what's "normal"? It's a slippery slope when we start
> > making personal value judgments about which parts of the architectural
> > specification are important and which aren't.
>
> I agree, but in a very similar case Intel chose to take an erratum instead of
> fixing what was in all likelihood a microcode bug, i.e. could have been patched
> in the field. So it's not _just_ personal value judgment, though it's definitely
> that too :-)
>
> I'm not saying I'd actively oppose support for strict VMREAD/VMWRITE adherence
> to the vCPU model, but I'm also not going to advise anyone to go spend their time
> implementing a non-trivial fix for behavior that, AFAIK, doesn't adversely affect
> any real world use cases.
>
Thank you all for the discussion, Sean & Jim.
Could we draw a conclusion to just keep KVM as it is now? If yes, how about we
depricate the check against max index value from MSR_IA32_VMX_VMCS_ENUM in vmx.c
of the kvm-unit-test?
After all, we have not witnessed any real system doing so.
E.g.,
diff --git a/x86/vmx.c b/x86/vmx.c
index f0b853a..63623e5 100644
--- a/x86/vmx.c
+++ b/x86/vmx.c
@@ -380,8 +380,7 @@ static void test_vmwrite_vmread(void)
vmcs_enum_max = (rdmsr(MSR_IA32_VMX_VMCS_ENUM) & VMCS_FIELD_INDEX_MASK)
>> VMCS_FIELD_INDEX_SHIFT;
max_index = find_vmcs_max_index();
- report(vmcs_enum_max == max_index,
- "VMX_VMCS_ENUM.MAX_INDEX expected: %x, actual: %x",
+ printf("VMX_VMCS_ENUM.MAX_INDEX expected: %x, actual: %x",
max_index, vmcs_enum_max);
assert(!vmcs_clear(vmcs));
B.R.
Yu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-08 8:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-17 9:31 [PATCH v1 0/5] KVM/x86/nVMX: Add field existence support in VMCS12 Robert Hoo
2021-08-17 9:31 ` [PATCH v1 1/5] KVM: x86: nVMX: Add vmcs12 field existence bitmap in nested_vmx Robert Hoo
2021-10-20 15:10 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-10-21 12:41 ` Robert Hoo
2021-08-17 9:31 ` [PATCH v1 2/5] KVM: x86: nVMX: Update VMCS12 fields existence when nVMX MSRs are set Robert Hoo
2021-10-20 15:11 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-10-21 13:08 ` Robert Hoo
2021-08-17 9:31 ` [PATCH v1 3/5] KVM: x86: nVMX: VMCS12 field's read/write respects field existence bitmap Robert Hoo
2021-08-17 15:54 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-08-18 5:50 ` Robert Hoo
2021-08-18 23:10 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-08-18 23:45 ` Jim Mattson
2021-08-18 23:49 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-08-19 9:58 ` Robert Hoo
2021-09-01 20:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-03 8:51 ` Robert Hoo
2021-09-03 15:11 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-28 10:05 ` Robert Hoo
2021-10-05 16:15 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-05 17:32 ` Jim Mattson
2021-10-05 17:59 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-05 20:42 ` Jim Mattson
2021-10-05 20:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-05 22:40 ` Jim Mattson
2021-10-05 23:22 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-08 8:23 ` Yu Zhang [this message]
2021-10-08 15:09 ` Robert Hoo
2021-10-08 23:49 ` Jim Mattson
2021-10-09 0:05 ` Robert Hoo
2021-10-29 19:53 ` Jim Mattson
2021-11-03 1:31 ` Robert Hoo
2021-11-09 22:33 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-10 5:35 ` Yu Zhang
2021-11-18 1:19 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-19 7:32 ` Robert Hoo
2021-08-17 9:31 ` [PATCH v1 4/5] KVM: x86: nVMX: Respect vmcs12 field existence when calc vmx_vmcs_enum_msr Robert Hoo
2021-08-17 9:31 ` [PATCH v1 5/5] KVM: x86: nVMX: Ignore user space set value to MSR_IA32_VMX_VMCS_ENUM Robert Hoo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211008082302.txckaasmsystigeu@linux.intel.com \
--to=yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=robert.hu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).