On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 04:35:51PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 08:01:12PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > This adds the following feature words to the list of flags to be checked
> > by kvm_check_features_against_host():
> >
> > - cpuid_7_0_ebx_features
> > - ext4_features
> > - kvm_features
> > - svm_features
> >
> > This will ensure the "enforce" flag works as it should: it won't allow
> > QEMU to be started unless every flag that was requested by the user or
> > defined in the CPU model is supported by the host.
> >
> > This patch may cause existing configurations where "enforce" wasn't
> > preventing QEMU from being started to abort QEMU. But that's exactly the
> > point of this patch: if a flag was not supported by the host and QEMU
> > wasn't aborting, it was a bug in the "enforce" code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > CCing libvirt people, as this is directly related to the planned usage
> > of the "enforce" flag by libvirt.
> >
> > The libvirt team probably has a problem in their hands: libvirt should
> > use "enforce" to make sure all requested flags are making their way into
> > the guest (so the resulting CPU is always the same, on any host), but
> > users may have existing working configurations where a flag is not
> > supported by the guest and the user really doesn't care about it. Those
> > configurations will necessarily break when libvirt starts using
> > "enforce".
> >
> > One example where it may cause trouble for common setups: pc-1.3 wants
> > the kvm_pv_eoi flag enabled by default (so "enforce" will make sure it
> > is enabled), but the user may have an existing VM running on a host
> > without pv_eoi support. That setup is unsafe today because
> > live-migration between different host kernel versions may enable/disable
> > pv_eoi silently (that's why we need the "enforce" flag to be used by
> > libvirt), but the user probably would like to be able to live-migrate
> > that VM anyway (and have libvirt to "just do the right thing").
> >
> > One possible solution to libvirt is to use "enforce" only on newer
> > machine-types, so existing machines with older machine-types will keep
> > the unsafe host-dependent-ABI behavior, but at least would keep
> > live-migration working in case the user is careful.
> >
> > I really don't know what the libvirt team prefers, but that's the
> > situation today. The longer we take to make "enforce" strict as it
> > should and make libvirt finally use it, more users will have VMs with
> > migration-unsafe unpredictable guest ABIs.
> >
> > Changes v2:
> > - Coding style fix
> > ---
> > target-i386/cpu.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c
> > index 876b0f6..52727ad 100644
> > --- a/target-i386/cpu.c
> > +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c
> > @@ -955,8 +955,9 @@ static int unavailable_host_feature(struct model_features_t *f, uint32_t mask)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -/* best effort attempt to inform user requested cpu flags aren't making
> > - * their way to the guest.
> > +/* Check if all requested cpu flags are making their way to the guest
> > + *
> > + * Returns 0 if all flags are supported by the host, non-zero otherwise.
> > *
> > * This function may be called only if KVM is enabled.
> > */
> > @@ -973,7 +974,15 @@ static int kvm_check_features_against_host(x86_def_t *guest_def)
> > {&guest_def->ext2_features, &host_def.ext2_features,
> > ext2_feature_name, 0x80000001, R_EDX},
> > {&guest_def->ext3_features, &host_def.ext3_features,
> > - ext3_feature_name, 0x80000001, R_ECX}
> > + ext3_feature_name, 0x80000001, R_ECX},
> > + {&guest_def->ext4_features, &host_def.ext4_features,
> > + NULL, 0xC0000001, R_EDX},
> Since there is not name array for ext4_features they cannot be added or
> removed on the command line hence no need to check them, no?
In theory, yes. But it won't hurt to check it, and it will be useful to
unify the list of feature words in a single place, so we can be sure the
checking/filtering/setting code at
kvm_check_features_against_host()/kvm_filter_features_for_host()/kvm_cpu_fill_host(),
will all check/filter/set exactly the same feature words.
>
> > + {&guest_def->cpuid_7_0_ebx_features, &host_def.cpuid_7_0_ebx_features,
> > + cpuid_7_0_ebx_feature_name, 7, R_EBX},
> > + {&guest_def->svm_features, &host_def.svm_features,
> > + svm_feature_name, 0x8000000A, R_EDX},
> > + {&guest_def->kvm_features, &host_def.kvm_features,
> > + kvm_feature_name, KVM_CPUID_FEATURES, R_EAX},
> > };
> >
> > assert(kvm_enabled());
> > --
> > 1.7.11.7
>
> --
> Gleb.
--
Eduardo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
