Re: [PATCH v4 10/20] KVM:x86: Make guest supervisor states as non-XSAVE managed

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 7/24/2023 4:26 PM, Chao Gao wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 11:03:42PM -0400, Yang Weijiang wrote:
+static void kvm_save_cet_supervisor_ssp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+	preempt_disable();
what's the purpose of disabling preemption?

Thanks!

These preempt_disable/enable() becomes unnecessary due to the PLx_SSP handling

in sched_in/out(). Will remove them.


+	if (unlikely(guest_can_use(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_SHSTK))) {
+		rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP, vcpu->arch.cet_s_ssp[0]);
+		rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_PL1_SSP, vcpu->arch.cet_s_ssp[1]);
+		rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_PL2_SSP, vcpu->arch.cet_s_ssp[2]);
+		/*
+		 * Omit reset to host PL{1,2}_SSP because Linux will never use
+		 * these MSRs.
+		 */
+		wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP, 0);
You don't need to reset the MSR because current host doesn't enable SSS
and leaving guest value in the MSR won't affect host behavior.

Yes,  I just want to make the host PLx_SSPs as clean as possible.


+	}
+	preempt_enable();
+}
+
+static void kvm_reload_cet_supervisor_ssp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+	preempt_disable();
+	if (unlikely(guest_can_use(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_SHSTK))) {
+		wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP, vcpu->arch.cet_s_ssp[0]);
+		wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PL1_SSP, vcpu->arch.cet_s_ssp[1]);
+		wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PL2_SSP, vcpu->arch.cet_s_ssp[2]);
+	}
+	preempt_enable();
+}
save/load PLx_SSP in kvm_sched_in/out() and in VCPU_RUN ioctl is sub-optimal.

How about:
1. expose kvm_save/reload_cet_supervisor_ssp()
2. reload guest PLx_SSP in {vmx,svm}_prepare_switch_to_guest()
3. save guest PLx_SSP in vmx_prepare_switch_to_host() and
    svm_prepare_host_switch()?

this way existing svm/vmx->guest_state_loaded can help to reduce a lot of
unnecessary PLx_SSP MSR accesses.

Nice suggestion! It looks workable. I'll try this,  thanks!


+
int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
	struct kvm_queued_exception *ex = &vcpu->arch.exception;
@@ -11222,6 +11249,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
	kvm_sigset_activate(vcpu);
	kvm_run->flags = 0;
	kvm_load_guest_fpu(vcpu);
+	kvm_reload_cet_supervisor_ssp(vcpu);

	kvm_vcpu_srcu_read_lock(vcpu);
	if (unlikely(vcpu->arch.mp_state == KVM_MP_STATE_UNINITIALIZED)) {
@@ -11310,6 +11338,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
	r = vcpu_run(vcpu);

out:
+	kvm_save_cet_supervisor_ssp(vcpu);
	kvm_put_guest_fpu(vcpu);
	if (kvm_run->kvm_valid_regs)
		store_regs(vcpu);
@@ -12398,9 +12427,17 @@ void kvm_arch_sched_in(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
		pmu->need_cleanup = true;
		kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMU, vcpu);
	}
+
+	kvm_reload_cet_supervisor_ssp(vcpu);
+
	static_call(kvm_x86_sched_in)(vcpu, cpu);
}

+void kvm_arch_sched_out(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
+{
@cpu its meaning isn't clear and isn't used and ...
Yes, I should have removed it.

+	kvm_save_cet_supervisor_ssp(vcpu);
+}
+
void kvm_arch_free_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
{
	kfree(to_kvm_hv(kvm)->hv_pa_pg);
diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
index d90331f16db1..b3032a5f0641 100644
--- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
+++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
@@ -1423,6 +1423,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);

void kvm_arch_sched_in(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu);
+void kvm_arch_sched_out(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu);

void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu);
void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 66c1447d3c7f..42f28e8905e1 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -5885,6 +5885,7 @@ static void kvm_sched_out(struct preempt_notifier *pn,
{
	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = preempt_notifier_to_vcpu(pn);

+	kvm_arch_sched_out(vcpu, 0);
passing 0 always looks problematic.
Can you elaborate? I have no intent to use @cpu now.
	if (current->on_rq) {
		WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->preempted, true);
		WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->ready, true);
--
2.27.0




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux