On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 01:59:10PM -0800, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 11:57 AM Sean Christopherson
> <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Extend the mask in cpuid_function_in_range() for finding the "class" of
> > the function to 0xfffffff00. While there is no official definition of
> > what constitutes a class, e.g. arguably bits 31:16 should be the class
> > and bits 15:0 the functions within that class, the Hypervisor logic
> > effectively uses bits 31:8 as the class by virtue of checking for
> > different bases in increments of 0x100, e.g. KVM advertises its CPUID
> > functions starting at 0x40000100 when HyperV features are advertised at
> > the default base of 0x40000000.
>
> This convention deserves explicit documentation outside of the commit message.
No argument there.
> > Masking against 0x80000000 only handles basic and extended leafs, which
> > results in Centaur and Hypervisor range checks being performed against
> > the basic CPUID range, e.g. if CPUID.0x40000000.EAX=0x4000000A and there
> > is no entry for CPUID.0x40000006, then function 0x40000006 would be
> > incorrectly reported as out of bounds.
> >
> > The bad range check doesn't cause function problems for any known VMM
> > because out-of-range semantics only come into play if the exact entry
> > isn't found, and VMMs either support a very limited Hypervisor range,
> > e.g. the official KVM range is 0x40000000-0x40000001 (effectively no
> > room for undefined leafs) or explicitly defines gaps to be zero, e.g.
> > Qemu explicitly creates zeroed entries up to the Cenatur and Hypervisor
> > limits (the latter comes into play when providing HyperV features).
>
> Does Centaur implement the bizarre Intel behavior for out-of-bound
> entries? It seems that if there are Centaur leaves defined, the CPUD
> semantics should be those specified by Centaur.
Ah, right, because this code triggers on !=AMD, not ==Intel. Your guess
is as good as mine, I've dug around a few times trying to track down a spec
for Centaur/VIA without success.
I would say that KVM's emulation behavior should probably be all or
nothing, i.e. either due Intel's silly logic for all ranges/classes or do
it for none.
> > The bad behavior can be visually confirmed by dumping CPUID output in
> > the guest when running Qemu with a stable TSC, as Qemu extends the limit
> > of range 0x40000000 to 0x40000010 to advertise VMware's cpuid_freq,
> > without defining zeroed entries for 0x40000002 - 0x4000000f.
> >
> > Fixes: 43561123ab37 ("kvm: x86: Improve emulation of CPUID leaves 0BH and 1FH")
> > Cc: Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > index 6be012937eba..c320126e0118 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > @@ -993,7 +993,7 @@ static bool cpuid_function_in_range(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 function)
> > {
> > struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *max;
> >
> > - max = kvm_find_cpuid_entry(vcpu, function & 0x80000000, 0);
> > + max = kvm_find_cpuid_entry(vcpu, function & 0xffffff00u, 0);
>
> This assumes that CPUID.(function & 0xffffff00):EAX always contains
> the maximum input value for the 256-entry range sharing the high 24
> bits. I don't believe that convention has ever been established or
> documented.
Not sure if it's formally documented, but it's well established. The
closest thing I could find to documentation is the lkml thread where what's
implemented today (AFAICT) was proposed.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/48E3BBC1.2050607@xxxxxxxx/
The relevant linux code in Linux (arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h), where
@leaves contains the kernel's required minimum leaf to enable paravirt
stuff for the hypervisor.
static inline uint32_t hypervisor_cpuid_base(const char *sig, uint32_t leaves)
{
uint32_t base, eax, signature[3];
for (base = 0x40000000; base < 0x40010000; base += 0x100) {
cpuid(base, &eax, &signature[0], &signature[1], &signature[2]);
if (!memcmp(sig, signature, 12) &&
(leaves == 0 || ((eax - base) >= leaves)))
return base;
}
return 0;
}
> > return max && function <= max->eax;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.24.1
> >
