On 1/1/2025 9:40 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 02:14:38PM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
>> @@ -1437,8 +1471,16 @@ static enum es_result vc_handle_msr(struct ghcb *ghcb, struct es_em_ctxt *ctxt)
>> /* Is it a WRMSR? */
>> write = ctxt->insn.opcode.bytes[1] == 0x30;
>>
>> - if (regs->cx == MSR_SVSM_CAA)
>> + switch (regs->cx) {
>> + case MSR_SVSM_CAA:
>> return __vc_handle_msr_caa(regs, write);
>> + case MSR_IA32_TSC:
>> + case MSR_AMD64_GUEST_TSC_FREQ:
>> + if (sev_status & MSR_AMD64_SNP_SECURE_TSC)
>> + return __vc_handle_msr_tsc(regs, write);
>
> Again: move all the logic inside __vc_handle_msr_tsc().
>
Boris, I have mentioned in my previous reply why this is incorrect for non-SecureTSC guests with examples and had asked for your confirmation if it is an acceptable behaviour[1] and Tom has also objected to the change of behavior for non-SecureTSC guest[2].
I think we are dragging this a little too far and the implementation[3] that I gave is good without any side effects.
Regards
Nikunj
1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7a5de2be-4e79-409a-90f2-398815fc59c7@xxxxxxx
2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/1510fe7f-1c10-aea7-75be-37c5c58d6a05@xxxxxxx
3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/a28dfd0a-c0ab-490f-bc1a-945182d07790@xxxxxxx
