On Fri, Nov 10, 2023, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > On Wed Nov 8, 2023 at 6:33 PM UTC, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > - What is the split between userspace and KVM? How did you arrive at that split? > > Our original design, which we discussed in the KVM forum 2023 [1] and is > public [2], implemented most of VSM in-kernel. Notably we introduced VTL > awareness in struct kvm_vcpu. ... > So we decided to move all this complexity outside of struct kvm_vcpu > and, as much as possible, out of the kernel. We figures out the basic > kernel building blocks that are absolutely necessary, and let user-space > deal with the rest. Sorry, I should have been more clear. What's the split in terms of responsibilities, i.e. what will KVM's ABI look like? E.g. if the vCPU=>VTLs setup is nonsensical, does KVM care? My general preference is for KVM to be as permissive as possible, i.e. let userspace do whatever it wants so long as it doesn't place undue burden on KVM. But at the same time I don't to end up in a similar boat as many of the paravirt features, where things just stop working if userspace or the guest makes a goof. > > - Why not make VTLs a first-party concept in KVM? E.g. rather than bury info > > in a VTL device and APIC ID groups, why not modify "struct kvm" to support > > replicating state that needs to be tracked per-VTL? Because of how memory > > attributes affect hugepages, duplicating *memslots* might actually be easier > > than teaching memslots to be VTL-aware. > > I do agree that we need to introduce some level VTL awareness into > memslots. There's the hugepages issues you pointed out. But it'll be > also necessary once we look at how to implement overlay pages that are > per-VTL. (A topic I didn't mention in the series as I though I had > managed to solve memory protections while avoiding the need for multiple > slots). What I have in mind is introducing a memory slot address space > per-VTL, similar to how we do things with SMM. Noooooooo (I hate memslot address spaces :-) ) Why not represent each VTL with a separate "struct kvm" instance? That would naturally provide per-VTL behavior for: - APIC groups - memslot overlays - memory attributes (and their impact on hugepages) - MMU pages The only (obvious) issue with that approach would be cross-VTL operations. IIUC, sending IPIs across VTLs isn't allowed, but even if it were, that should be easy enough to solve, e.g. KVM already supports posting interrupts from non-KVM sources. GVA=>GPA translation would be trickier, but that patch suggests you want to handle that in userspace anyways. And if translation is a rare/slow path, maybe it could simply be punted to userspace? NOTE: The hypercall implementation is incomplete and only shared for completion. Additionally we'd like to move the VTL aware parts to user-space. Ewww, and looking at what it would take to support cross-VM translations shows another problem with using vCPUs to model VTLs. Nothing prevents userspace from running a virtual CPU at multiple VTLs concurrently, which means that anything that uses kvm_hv_get_vtl_vcpu() is unsafe, e.g. walk_mmu->gva_to_gpa() could be modified while kvm_hv_xlate_va_walk() is running. I suppose that's not too hard to solve, e.g. mutex_trylock() and bail if something holds the other kvm_vcpu/VTL's mutex. Though ideally, KVM would punt all cross-VTL operations to userspace. :-) If punting to userspace isn't feasible, using a struct kvm per VTL probably wouldn't make the locking and concurrency problems meaningfully easier or harder to solve. E.g. KVM could require VTLs, i.e. "struct kvm" instances that are part of a single virtual machine, to belong to the same process. That'd avoid headaches with mm_struct, at which point I don't _think_ getting and using a kvm_vcpu from a different kvm would need special handling? Heh, another fun one, the VTL handling in kvm_hv_send_ipi() is wildly broken, the in_vtl field is consumed before send_ipi is read from userspace. union hv_input_vtl *in_vtl; u64 valid_bank_mask; u32 vector; bool all_cpus; u8 vtl; /* VTL is at the same offset on both IPI types */ in_vtl = &send_ipi.in_vtl; vtl = in_vtl->use_target_vtl ? in_vtl->target_vtl : kvm_hv_get_active_vtl(vcpu); > > E.g. if 90% of the state is guaranteed to be identical for a given > > vCPU across execution contexts, then modeling that with separate > > kvm_vcpu structures is very inefficient. I highly doubt it's 90%, > > but it might be quite high depending on how much the TFLS restricts > > the state of the vCPU, e.g. if it's 64-bit only. > > For the record here's the private VTL state (TLFS 15.11.1): > > "In general, each VTL has its own control registers, RIP register, RSP > register, and MSRs: > > SYSENTER_CS, SYSENTER_ESP, SYSENTER_EIP, STAR, LSTAR, CSTAR, SFMASK, > EFER, PAT, KERNEL_GSBASE, FS.BASE, GS.BASE, TSC_AUX > HV_X64_MSR_HYPERCALL > HV_X64_MSR_GUEST_OS_ID > HV_X64_MSR_REFERENCE_TSC > HV_X64_MSR_APIC_FREQUENCY > HV_X64_MSR_EOI > HV_X64_MSR_ICR > HV_X64_MSR_TPR > HV_X64_MSR_APIC_ASSIST_PAGE > HV_X64_MSR_NPIEP_CONFIG > HV_X64_MSR_SIRBP > HV_X64_MSR_SCONTROL > HV_X64_MSR_SVERSION > HV_X64_MSR_SIEFP > HV_X64_MSR_SIMP > HV_X64_MSR_EOM > HV_X64_MSR_SINT0 – HV_X64_MSR_SINT15 > HV_X64_MSR_STIMER0_COUNT – HV_X64_MSR_STIMER3_COUNT > Local APIC registers (including CR8/TPR) Ugh, the APIC state is quite the killer. And I gotta image things like CET and FRED are only going to increase that list.
