On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 12:59 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 07:44:51PM -0700, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > The business of declaring breaking changes to the architectural
> > specification in a CPUID bit has never made much sense to me.
>
> How else should they be expressed then?
>
> In some flaky PDF which changes URLs whenever the new corporate CMS gets
> installed?
>
> Or we should do f/m/s matching which doesn't make any sense for VMs?
>
> When you think about it, CPUID is the best thing we have.
>
> > No one is likely to query CPUID.80000021H.EAX[bit 21] today, but if
> > someone does query the bit in the future, they can reasonably expect
> > that WRMSR({FS,GS,KERNELGS}_BASE) is a serializing operation whenever
> > this bit is clear. Therefore, any hypervisor that doesn't pass the bit
> > through is broken. Sadly, this also means that for a heterogenous
> > migration pool, the hypervisor must set this bit in the guest CPUID if
> > it is set on any host in the pool. Yes, that means that the legacy
> > behavior may sometimes be present in a VM that enumerates the CPUID
> > bit, but that's the best we can do.
>
> Yes, add this to your commit message.
>
> > I'm a little surprised at the pushback, TBH. Are you implying that
> > there is some advantage to *not* passing this bit through?
>
> We don't add stuff which is not worth adding. There has to be *at*
> *least* some justification for it.
Let me propose the following axiom as justification:
KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID must pass through any defeature bits that are
set on the host, unless KVM is prepared to emulate the missing
feature.
Here, a defeature bit is any CPUID bit where a value of '1' indicates
the absence of a feature.
> Thx.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
