On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 06:15:25PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 04:58:51PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > > @@ -727,6 +734,15 @@ static void __init kvm_init_platform(void)
> > > {
> > > kvmclock_init();
> > > x86_platform.apic_post_init = kvm_apic_init;
> > > +
> > > + if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_MEM_PROTECTED)) {
> > > + if (kvm_hypercall0(KVM_HC_ENABLE_MEM_PROTECTED)) {
> > > + pr_err("Failed to enable KVM memory protection\n");
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + mem_protected = true;
> > > + }
> > > }
> >
> > Personally, I'd prefer to do this via setting a bit in a KVM-specific
> > MSR instead. The benefit is that the guest doesn't need to remember if
> > it enabled the feature or not, it can always read the config msr. May
> > come handy for e.g. kexec/kdump.
>
> I think we would need to remember it anyway. Accessing MSR is somewhat
> expensive. But, okay, I can rework it MSR if needed.
I think Vitaly is talking about the case where the kernel can't easily get
at its cached state, e.g. after booting into a new kernel. The kernel would
still have an X86_FEATURE bit or whatever, providing a virtual MSR would be
purely for rare slow paths.
That being said, a hypercall plus CPUID bit might be better, e.g. that'd
allow the guest to query the state without risking a #GP.
> Note, that we can avoid the enabling algother, if we modify BIOS to deal
> with private/shared memory. Currently BIOS get system crash if we enable
> the feature from time zero.
Which would mesh better with a CPUID feature bit.
