On Fri, Nov 24, 2023, Xu Yilun wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 07:35:30PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Fri, 2023-11-10 at 15:55 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > static void __kvm_update_cpuid_runtime(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entries,
> > > int nent)
> > > {
> > > struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *best;
> > > + struct kvm_vcpu *caps = vcpu;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Don't update vCPU capabilities if KVM is updating CPUID entries that
> > > + * are coming in from userspace!
> > > + */
> > > + if (entries != vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries)
> > > + caps = NULL;
> >
> > I think that this should be decided by the caller. Just a boolean will suffice.
I strongly disagree. The _only_ time the caps should be updated is if
entries == vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries, and if entries == cpuid_entires than the caps
should _always_ be updated.
> kvm_set_cpuid() calls this function only to validate/adjust the temporary
> "entries" variable. While kvm_update_cpuid_runtime() calls it to do system
> level changes.
>
> So I kind of agree to make the caller fully awared, how about adding a
> newly named wrapper for kvm_set_cpuid(), like:
>
>
> static void kvm_adjust_cpuid_entry(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entries,
> int nent)
>
> {
> WARN_ON(entries == vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries);
> __kvm_update_cpuid_runtime(vcpu, entries, nent);
But taking it a step further, we end up with
WARN_ON_ONCE(update_caps != (entries == vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries));
which is silly since any bugs that would result in the WARN firing can be avoided
by doing:
update_caps = entries == vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries;
which eventually distils down to the code I posted.
> > Or even better: since the userspace CPUID update is really not important in
> > terms of performance, why to special case it?
> >
> > Even if these guest caps are later overwritten, I don't see why we need to
> > avoid updating them, and in fact introduce a small risk of them not being
> > consistent
>
> IIUC, for kvm_set_cpuid() case, KVM may then fail the userspace cpuid setting,
> so we can't change guest caps at this phase.
> Or even better: since the userspace CPUID update is really not important in
> terms of performance, why to special case it?
Yep, and sadly __kvm_update_cpuid_runtime() *must* be invoked before kvm_set_cpuid()
is guaranteed to succeed because the whole point is to massage guest CPUID before
checking for divergences.
> > With this we can avoid having the 'cap' variable which is *very* confusing as well.
I agree the "caps" variable is confusing, but it's the least awful option I see.
The alternatives I can think of are:
1. Update a dummy caps array
2. Take a snapshot of the caps and restore them
3. Have separate paths for updated guest CPUID versus guest caps
#1 would require passing a "u32 *" to guest_cpu_cap_change() (or an equivalent),
which I really, really don't want to do. It' also a waste of cycles, and I'm
skeptical that it would be any less confusing than the proposed code.
#2 increases the complexity of kvm_set_cpuid() by introducing recovery paths, i.e.
adds more things that can break, and again is wasteful (though copying ~100 bytes
or so in a slow path isn't a big deal).
#3 would create unnecessary maintenance burden as we'd have to ensure any changes
hit both paths.
