From: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, <iwj@xenproject.org>,
<wl@xen.org>, <anthony.perard@citrix.com>,
<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
<kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] x86: Allow non-faulting accesses to non-emulated MSRs if policy permits this
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:53:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YC6Ne2ZEg5alzRk2@Air-de-Roger> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <785a4925-31f2-9df1-a4b3-1760ad17e01e@suse.com>
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:57:13PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.02.2021 12:24, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 05:49:11PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >> @@ -3017,8 +3017,8 @@ static int vmx_msr_read_intercept(unsigned int msr, uint64_t *msr_content)
> >> break;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "RDMSR 0x%08x unimplemented\n", msr);
> >> - goto gp_fault;
> >> + if ( guest_unhandled_msr(curr, msr, msr_content, false, true) )
> >> + goto gp_fault;
> >> }
> >>
> >> done:
> >> @@ -3319,10 +3319,8 @@ static int vmx_msr_write_intercept(unsigned int msr, uint64_t msr_content)
> >> is_last_branch_msr(msr) )
> >> break;
> >>
> >> - gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING,
> >> - "WRMSR 0x%08x val 0x%016"PRIx64" unimplemented\n",
> >> - msr, msr_content);
> >> - goto gp_fault;
> >> + if ( guest_unhandled_msr(v, msr, &msr_content, true, true) )
> >> + goto gp_fault;
> >> }
> >
> > I think this could be done in hvm_msr_read_intercept instead of having
> > to call guest_unhandled_msr from each vendor specific handler?
> >
> > Oh, I see, that's likely done to differentiate between guest MSR
> > accesses and emulator ones? I'm not sure we really need to make a
> > difference between guests MSR accesses and emulator ones, surely in
> > the past they would be treated equally?
>
> We did discuss this before. Even if they were treated the same in
> the past, that's not correct, and hence we shouldn't suppress the
> distinction going forward. A guest explicitly asking to access an
> MSR (via RDMSR/WRMSR) is entirely different from the emulator
> perhaps just probing an MSR, falling back to some default behavior
> if it's unavailable.
Ack, then placing the calls to guest_unhandled_msr in vendor code
seems like the best option.
Thanks, Roger.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-18 15:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-20 22:49 [PATCH v2 0/4] Permit fault-less access to non-emulated MSRs Boris Ostrovsky
2021-01-20 22:49 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] xl: Add support for ignore_msrs option Boris Ostrovsky
2021-01-21 14:56 ` Wei Liu
2021-01-21 22:43 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-01-22 9:52 ` Julien Grall
2021-01-22 18:28 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-01-22 18:33 ` Julien Grall
2021-01-22 18:39 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-01-22 20:42 ` Julien Grall
2021-02-18 10:42 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-18 11:54 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-18 15:52 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-18 15:57 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-19 14:50 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-02-22 10:24 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-22 10:33 ` Jan Beulich
2021-01-20 22:49 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] x86: Introduce MSR_UNHANDLED Boris Ostrovsky
2021-01-22 11:51 ` Jan Beulich
2021-01-22 18:56 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-02-02 17:01 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-02-18 10:51 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-19 14:56 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-02-22 11:08 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-22 21:19 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-02-23 7:57 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-23 9:34 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-23 10:15 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-23 12:17 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-23 13:23 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-23 15:39 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-02-23 16:10 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-23 18:00 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-23 16:11 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-23 16:40 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-02-23 18:02 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-23 18:45 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-01-20 22:49 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] x86: Allow non-faulting accesses to non-emulated MSRs if policy permits this Boris Ostrovsky
2021-01-22 12:51 ` Jan Beulich
2021-01-22 19:52 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-01-25 10:22 ` Jan Beulich
2021-01-25 18:42 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-01-26 9:05 ` Jan Beulich
2021-01-26 16:02 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-01-26 16:35 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-18 11:24 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-18 11:57 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-18 15:53 ` Roger Pau Monné [this message]
2021-01-20 22:49 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] tools/libs: Apply MSR policy to a guest Boris Ostrovsky
2021-01-21 14:58 ` Wei Liu
2021-01-22 9:56 ` Julien Grall
2021-01-22 18:35 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2021-02-18 11:48 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-02-19 14:57 ` Boris Ostrovsky
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=YC6Ne2ZEg5alzRk2@Air-de-Roger \
--to=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=anthony.perard@citrix.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=iwj@xenproject.org \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/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).