On 20.10.22 07:58, Li, Xin3 wrote:
>> On 19.10.22 19:45, Li, Xin3 wrote:
>>>>> +static inline void __init lkgs_init(void) { #ifdef
>>>>> +CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>>>>> +	if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_LKGS))
>>>>> +		pv_ops.cpu.load_gs_index = native_lkgs;
>>>>
>>>> For this to work correctly when running as a Xen PV guest, you need
>>>> to add
>>>>
>>>> 	setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_LKGS);
>>>>
>>>> to xen_init_capabilities() in arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c, as
>>>> otherwise the Xen specific .load_gs_index vector will be overwritten.
>>>
>>> Yeah, we definitely should add it to disable LKGS in a Xen PV guest.
>>>
>>> So does it mean that the Xen PV uses a black list during feature detection?
>>> If yes then new features are often required to be masked with an
>>> explicit call to setup_clear_cpu_cap.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't a white list be better?
>>> Then the job is more just on the Xen PV side, and it can selectively
>>> enable a new feature, sometimes with Xen PV specific handling code added.
>>
>> This is not how it works. Feature detection is generic code, so we'd need to
>> tweak that for switching to a whitelist.
>>
> 
> Yes, a Xen PV guest is basically a Linux system.  However IIRC, the Xen PV
> CPUID is para-virtualized, so it's Xen hypervisor's responsibility to decide
> features exposed to a Xen PV guest.  No?

In theory you are right, of course.

OTOH the Xen PV interface has a long and complicated history, and we have to
deal with old hypervisor versions, too.

>> Additionally most features don't require any Xen PV specific handling. This is
>> needed for some paravirtualized privileged operations only. So switching to a
>> whitelist would add more effort.
>>
> 
> LKGS is allowed only in ring 0, thus only Xen hypervisor could use it.

Right, it would be one of the features where a whitelist would be nice.

OTOH today only 11 features need special handling in Xen PV guests, while
the rest of more than 300 features doesn't.


Juergen