Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] x86/vmx: add IPT cpu feature

["Michał Leszczyński" <michal.leszczynski@cert.pl>]

----- 2 lip 2020 o 10:34, Jan Beulich jbeulich@suse.com napisał(a):

> On 02.07.2020 10:10, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 10:42:55PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2020 13:33, Michał Leszczyński wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c
>>>> index ca94c2bedc..b73d824357 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c
>>>> @@ -291,6 +291,12 @@ static int vmx_init_vmcs_config(void)
>>>>          _vmx_cpu_based_exec_control &=
>>>>              ~(CPU_BASED_CR8_LOAD_EXITING | CPU_BASED_CR8_STORE_EXITING);
>>>>  
>>>> +    rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_VMX_MISC, _vmx_misc_cap);
>>>> +
>>>> +    /* Check whether IPT is supported in VMX operation. */
>>>> +    vmtrace_supported = cpu_has_ipt &&
>>>> +                        (_vmx_misc_cap & VMX_MISC_PT_SUPPORTED);
>>>
>>> There is a subtle corner case here.  vmx_init_vmcs_config() is called on
>>> all CPUs, and is supposed to level things down safely if we find any
>>> asymmetry.
>>>
>>> If instead you go with something like this:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c
>>> index b73d824357..6960109183 100644
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c
>>> @@ -294,8 +294,8 @@ static int vmx_init_vmcs_config(void)
>>>      rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_VMX_MISC, _vmx_misc_cap);
>>>  
>>>      /* Check whether IPT is supported in VMX operation. */
>>> -    vmtrace_supported = cpu_has_ipt &&
>>> -                        (_vmx_misc_cap & VMX_MISC_PT_SUPPORTED);
>>> +    if ( !(_vmx_misc_cap & VMX_MISC_PT_SUPPORTED) )
>>> +        vmtrace_supported = false;
>> 
>> This is also used during hotplug, so I'm not sure it's safe to turn
>> vmtrace_supported off during runtime, where VMs might be already using
>> it. IMO it would be easier to just set it on the BSP, and then refuse
>> to bring up any AP that doesn't have the feature.
> 
> +1
> 
> IOW I also don't think that "vmx_init_vmcs_config() ... is supposed to
> level things down safely". Instead I think the expectation is for
> CPU onlining to fail if a CPU lacks features compared to the BSP. As
> can be implied from what Roger says, doing like what you suggest may
> be fine during boot, but past that only at times where we know there's
> no user of a certain feature, and where discarding the feature flag
> won't lead to other inconsistencies (which may very well mean "never").
> 
> Jan


Ok, I will modify it in a way Roger suggested for the previous patch
version. CPU onlining will fail if there is an inconsistency.

Best regards,
Michał Leszczyński
CERT Polska