On 3/20/2023 8:23 PM, Binbin Wu wrote:
On 3/20/2023 8:07 PM, Chao Gao wrote:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 04:49:25PM +0800, Binbin Wu wrote:
Introduce a new interface untag_addr() to kvm_x86_ops to untag the
metadata
>from linear address. Implement LAM version in VMX and dummy version
in SVM.
When enabled feature like Intel Linear Address Masking or AMD Upper
Address Ignore, linear address may be tagged with metadata. Linear
address should be checked for modified canonicality and untagged in
instrution emulations or vmexit handlings if LAM or UAI is applicable.
Introduce untag_addr() to kvm_x86_ops to hide the code related to
vendor
specific details.
- For VMX, LAM version is implemented.
LAM has a modified canonical check when applicable:
* LAM_S48 : [ 1 ][ metadata ][ 1 ]
63 47
* LAM_U48 : [ 0 ][ metadata ][ 0 ]
63 47
* LAM_S57 : [ 1 ][ metadata ][ 1 ]
63 56
* LAM_U57 + 5-lvl paging : [ 0 ][ metadata ][ 0 ]
63 56
* LAM_U57 + 4-lvl paging : [ 0 ][ metadata ][ 0...0 ]
63 56..47
If LAM is applicable to certain address, untag the metadata bits and
replace them with the value of bit 47 (LAM48) or bit 56 (LAM57).
Later
the untagged address will do legacy canonical check. So that LAM
canonical
check and mask can be covered by "untag + legacy canonical check".
For cases LAM is not applicable, 'flags' is passed to the interface
to skip untag.
- For SVM, add a dummy version to do nothing, but return the original
address.
Signed-off-by: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h | 1 +
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 5 +++
arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 7 ++++
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.h | 2 +
5 files changed, 75 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h
b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h
index 8dc345cc6318..7d63d1b942ac 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h
@@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ KVM_X86_OP(cache_reg)
KVM_X86_OP(get_rflags)
KVM_X86_OP(set_rflags)
KVM_X86_OP(get_if_flag)
+KVM_X86_OP(untag_addr)
Suppose AMD doesn't/won't use CR4.LAM_SUP and CR3.LAM_U48/U57 for other
purposes, it is fine to use a common x86 function to perform LAM masking
for pointers. It won't do anything harmful on AMD parts because those
enabling bits shouldn't be set and then no bits will be masked out by
the common x86 function.
Probably we can defer the introduction of the hook to when the
assumption becomes wrong.
Another reason I introduced the hook is I noticed the AMD Upper
Address Ignore using [63:57] as metadata.
So the untag implementaion will be differnet. But indeed, it also will
be a future issue.
Let's hear more opinions from others, if more guys think the hook is
unnecessary for now, I can switch back to
a common x86 function.
Hi Sean,
What's your opinion? Do you think it is too early to introduce the hook?
