On Sun, Feb 07, 2021, Jing Liu wrote:
> The static xstate buffer kvm_xsave contains the extended register
> states, but it is not enough for dynamic features with large state.
>
> Introduce a new capability called KVM_CAP_X86_XSAVE_EXTENSION to
> detect if hardware has XSAVE extension (XFD). Meanwhile, add two
> new ioctl interfaces to get/set the whole xstate using struct
> kvm_xsave_extension buffer containing both static and dynamic
> xfeatures. Reuse fill_xsave and load_xsave for both cases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 5 +++
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 8 ++++
> 3 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> index 89e5f3d1bba8..bf785e89a728 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> @@ -362,6 +362,11 @@ struct kvm_xsave {
> __u32 region[1024];
> };
>
> +/* for KVM_CAP_XSAVE_EXTENSION */
> +struct kvm_xsave_extension {
> + __u32 region[3072];
Fool me once, shame on you (Intel). Fool me twice, shame on me (KVM).
As amusing as kvm_xsave_really_extended would be, the required size should be
discoverable, not hardcoded. Nothing prevents a hardware vendor from inventing
a newfangled feature that requires yet more space.
As an alternative to adding a dedicated capability, can we leverage
GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, leaf CPUID.0xD, to enumerate the minimum required size and
state that the new ioctl() is available if the min size is greater than 1024?
Or is that unnecessarily convoluted...
