On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 23:53 +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 10:23:50PM +0800, Robert Hoo wrote:
> > On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 14:21 +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 04:45:45PM +0800, Robert Hoo wrote:
> > > > LAM feature uses 2 high bits in CR3 (bit 62 for LAM_U48 and bit
> > > > 61
> > > > for
> > > > LAM_U57) to enable/config LAM feature for user mode addresses.
> > > > The
> > > > LAM
> > > > masking is done before legacy canonical checks.
> > > >
> > > > To virtualize LAM CR3 bits usage, this patch:
> > > > 1. Don't reserve these 2 bits when LAM is enable on the vCPU.
> > > > Previously
> > > > when validate CR3, kvm uses kvm_vcpu_is_legal_gpa(), now define
> > > > kvm_vcpu_is_valid_cr3() which is actually
> > > > kvm_vcpu_is_legal_gpa()
> > > > + CR3.LAM bits validation. Substitutes
> > > > kvm_vcpu_is_legal/illegal_gpa()
> > > > with kvm_vcpu_is_valid_cr3() in call sites where is validating
> > > > CR3
> > > > rather
> > > > than pure GPA.
> > > > 2. mmu::get_guest_pgd(), its implementation is get_cr3() which
> > > > returns
> > > > whole guest CR3 value. Strip LAM bits in those call sites that
> > > > need
> > > > pure
> > > > PGD value, e.g. mmu_alloc_shadow_roots(),
> > > > FNAME(walk_addr_generic)().
> > > > 3. When form a new guest CR3 (vmx_load_mmu_pgd()), melt in LAM
> > > > bit
> > > > (kvm_get_active_lam()).
> > > > 4. When guest sets CR3, identify ONLY-LAM-bits-toggling cases,
> > > > where it is
> > > > unnecessary to make new pgd, but just make request of load pgd,
> > > > then new
> > > > CR3.LAM bits configuration will be melt in (above point 3). To
> > > > be
> > > > conservative, this case still do TLB flush.
> > > > 5. For nested VM entry, allow the 2 CR3 bits set in
> > > > corresponding
> > > > VMCS host/guest fields.
> > >
> > > isn't this already covered by item #1 above?
> >
> > Ah, it is to address your comments on last version. To
> > repeat/emphasize
> > again, doesn't harm, does it?;)
>
> It is confusing. Trying to merge #5 to #1:
Well this is kind of subjective. I don't have any bias on this.
>
> If LAM is supported, bits 62:61 (LAM_U48 and LAM_U57) are not
> reserved
> in CR3. VM entry also allows the two bits to be set in CR3 field in
> guest-state and host-state area of the VMCS. Previously ...
>
> > >
> >
> > (...)
> > > >
> > > > +static inline u64 kvm_get_active_lam(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return kvm_read_cr3(vcpu) & (X86_CR3_LAM_U48 |
> > > > X86_CR3_LAM_U57);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > I think it is better to define a mask (like reserved_gpa_bits):
> > >
> > > kvm_vcpu_arch {
> > > ...
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Bits in CR3 used to enable certain features. These bits
> > > don't
> > > * participate in page table walking. They should be masked to
> > > * get the base address of page table. When shadow paging is
> > > * used, these bits should be kept as is in the shadow CR3.
> > > */
> > > u64 cr3_control_bits;
> > >
> >
> > I don't strongly object this. But per SDM, CR3.bit[63:MAXPHYADDR]
> > are
> > reserved; and MAXPHYADDR is at most 52 [1]. So can we assert and
> > simply
> > define the MASK bit[63:52]? (I did this in v3 and prior)
>
> No. Setting any bit in 60:52 should be rejected. And setting bit 62
> or
> 61 should be allowed if LAM is supported by the vCPU. I don't see how
> your proposal can distinguish these two cases.
No you didn't get my point.
Perhaps you can take a look at v3 patch and prior
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20221209044557.1496580-4-robert.hu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
define CR3_HIGH_RSVD_MASK, given "MAXPHYADDR is at most 52" is stated
in SDM.
