On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 08:34:16PM -0800, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 7:40 PM Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 6:45 PM Chao Gao <chao.gao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 10:04:41AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Jan 02, 2024, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 3:24 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > > >> > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 08:28:06AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > >> > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > >> > > > > index c57e181bba21..72634d6b61b2 100644
> > > >> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > >> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > >> > > > > @@ -5177,6 +5177,13 @@ void __kvm_mmu_refresh_passthrough_bits(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > >> > > > > reset_guest_paging_metadata(vcpu, mmu);
> > > >> > > > > }
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > +/* guest-physical-address bits limited by TDP */
> > > >> > > > > +unsigned int kvm_mmu_tdp_maxphyaddr(void)
> > > >> > > > > +{
> > > >> > > > > + return max_tdp_level == 5 ? 57 : 48;
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Using "57" is kinda sorta wrong, e.g. the SDM says:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Bits 56:52 of each guest-physical address are necessarily zero because
> > > >> > > > guest-physical addresses are architecturally limited to 52 bits.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Rather than split hairs over something that doesn't matter, I think it makes sense
> > > >> > > > for the CPUID code to consume max_tdp_level directly (I forgot that max_tdp_level
> > > >> > > > is still accurate when tdp_root_level is non-zero).
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > It is still accurate for now. Only AMD SVM sets tdp_root_level the same as
> > > >> > > max_tdp_level:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > kvm_configure_mmu(npt_enabled, get_npt_level(),
> > > >> > > get_npt_level(), PG_LEVEL_1G);
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > But I wanna doulbe confirm if directly using max_tdp_level is fully
> > > >> > > considered. In your last proposal, it is:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > u8 kvm_mmu_get_max_tdp_level(void)
> > > >> > > {
> > > >> > > return tdp_root_level ? tdp_root_level : max_tdp_level;
> > > >> > > }
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > and I think it makes more sense, because EPT setup follows the same
> > > >> > > rule. If any future architechture sets tdp_root_level smaller than
> > > >> > > max_tdp_level, the issue will happen again.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Setting tdp_root_level != max_tdp_level would be a blatant bug. max_tdp_level
> > > >> > really means "max possible TDP level KVM can use". If an exact TDP level is being
> > > >> > forced by tdp_root_level, then by definition it's also the max TDP level, because
> > > >> > it's the _only_ TDP level KVM supports.
> > > >>
> > > >> This is all just so broken and wrong. The only guest.MAXPHYADDR that
> > > >> can be supported under TDP is the host.MAXPHYADDR. If KVM claims to
> > > >> support a smaller guest.MAXPHYADDR, then KVM is obligated to intercept
> > > >> every #PF,
> > >
> > > in this case (i.e., to support 48-bit guest.MAXPHYADDR when CPU supports only
> > > 4-level EPT), KVM has no need to intercept #PF because accessing a GPA with
> > > RSVD bits 51-48 set leads to EPT violation.
> >
> > At the completion of the page table walk, if there is a permission
> > fault, the data address should not be accessed, so there should not be
> > an EPT violation. Remember Meltdown?
> >
> > > >> and to emulate the faulting instruction to see if the RSVD
> > > >> bit should be set in the error code. Hardware isn't going to do it.
> > >
> > > Note for EPT violation VM exits, the CPU stores the GPA that caused this exit
> > > in "guest-physical address" field of VMCS. so, it is not necessary to emulate
> > > the faulting instruction to determine if any RSVD bit is set.
> >
> > There should not be an EPT violation in the case discussed.
>
> For intercepted #PF, we can use CR2 to determine the necessary page
> walk, and presumably the rest of the bits in the error code are
> already set, so emulation is not necessary.
>
> However, emulation is necessary when synthesizing a #PF from an EPT
> violation, and bit 8 of the exit qualification is clear. See
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/4463f391-0a25-017e-f913-69c297e13c5e@xxxxxxxxxx/.
Although not all memory-accessing instructions are emulated, it covers most common
cases and is always better than KVM hangs anyway. We may probably continue to
improve allow_smaller_maxphyaddr, but KVM should report the maximum physical width
it supports.
Thanks,
Tao
