Wei,
On Tue, Dec 14 2021 at 16:11, Wei W. Wang wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:40 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 14 2021 at 15:09, Wei W. Wang wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 10:50 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >> + * Return: 0 on success, error code otherwise */ int
>> >> +__fpu_update_guest_features(struct fpu_guest *guest_fpu, u64 xcr0,
>> >> +u64
>> >> +xfd) {
>> >
>> > I think there would be one issue for the "host write on restore" case.
>> > The current QEMU based host restore uses the following sequence:
>> > 1) restore xsave
>> > 2) restore xcr0
>> > 3) restore XFD MSR
>>
>> This needs to be fixed. Ordering clearly needs to be:
>>
>> XFD, XCR0, XSTATE
>
> Sorry, just to clarify that the ordering in QEMU isn't made by us for this specific XFD enabling.
> It has been there for long time for the general restoring of all the XCRs and MSRs.
> (if you are interested..FYI: https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c#L4168).
> - kvm_put_xsave()
> - kvm_put_xcrs()
> - kvm_put_msrs()
>
> We need to check with the QEMU migration maintainer (Dave and Juan CC-ed)
> if changing that ordering would be OK.
> (In general, I think there are no hard rules documented for this ordering)
There haven't been ordering requirements so far, but with dynamic
feature enablement there are.
I really want to avoid going to the point to deduce it from the
xstate:xfeatures bitmap, which is just backwards and Qemu has all the
required information already.
Thanks,
tglx
