On Thu, Jul 15, 2021, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 7/14/21 3:17 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >> + case GHCB_MSR_AP_RESET_HOLD_REQ:
> >> + svm->ap_reset_hold_type = AP_RESET_HOLD_MSR_PROTO;
> >> + ret = kvm_emulate_ap_reset_hold(&svm->vcpu);
> >
> > The hold type feels like it should be a param to kvm_emulate_ap_reset_hold().
>
> I suppose it could be, but then the type would have to be tracked in the
> kvm_vcpu_arch struct instead of the vcpu_svm struct, so I opted for the
> latter. Maybe a helper function, sev_ap_reset_hold(), that sets the type
> and then calls kvm_emulate_ap_reset_hold(), but I'm not seeing a big need
> for it.
Huh. Why is kvm_emulate_ap_reset_hold() in x86.c? That entire concept is very
much SEV specific. And if anyone argues its not SEV specific, then the hold type
should also be considered generic, i.e. put in kvm_vcpu_arch.
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Preset the result to a non-SIPI return and then only set
> >> + * the result to non-zero when delivering a SIPI.
> >> + */
> >> + set_ghcb_msr_bits(svm, 0,
> >> + GHCB_MSR_AP_RESET_HOLD_RESULT_MASK,
> >> + GHCB_MSR_AP_RESET_HOLD_RESULT_POS);
> >> +
> >> + set_ghcb_msr_bits(svm, GHCB_MSR_AP_RESET_HOLD_RESP,
> >> + GHCB_MSR_INFO_MASK,
> >> + GHCB_MSR_INFO_POS);
> >
> > It looks like all uses set an arbitrary value and then the response. I think
> > folding the response into the helper would improve both readability and robustness.
>
> Joerg pulled this patch out and submitted it as part of a small, three
> patch series, so it might be best to address this in general in the
> SEV-SNP patches or as a follow-on series specifically for this re-work.
>
> > I also suspect the helper needs to do WRITE_ONCE() to guarantee the guest sees
> > what it's supposed to see, though memory ordering is not my strong suit.
>
> This is writing to the VMCB that is then used to set the value of the
> guest MSR. I don't see anything done in general for writes to the VMCB, so
> I wouldn't think this should be any different.
Ooooh, right. I was thinking this was writing memory that's shared with the
guest, but this is KVM's copy of the GCHB MSR, not the GHCB itself. Thanks!
> > Might even be able to squeeze in a build-time assertion.
> >
> > Also, do the guest-provided contents actually need to be preserved? That seems
> > somewhat odd.
>
> Hmmm... not sure I see where the guest contents are being preserved.
The fact that set_ghcb_msr_bits() is a RMW flow implies _something_ is being
preserved. And unless KVM explicitly zeros/initializes control.ghcb_gpa, the
value being preserved is the value last written by the guest. E.g. for CPUID
emulation, KVM reads the guest-requested function and register from ghcb_gpa,
then writes back the result. But set_ghcb_msr_bits() is a RMW on a subset of
bits, and thus it's preserving the guest's value for the bits not being written.
Unless there is an explicit need to preserve the guest value, the whole RMW thing
is unnecessary and confusing.
case GHCB_MSR_CPUID_REQ: {
u64 cpuid_fn, cpuid_reg, cpuid_value;
cpuid_fn = get_ghcb_msr_bits(svm,
GHCB_MSR_CPUID_FUNC_MASK,
GHCB_MSR_CPUID_FUNC_POS);
/* Initialize the registers needed by the CPUID intercept */
vcpu->arch.regs[VCPU_REGS_RAX] = cpuid_fn;
vcpu->arch.regs[VCPU_REGS_RCX] = 0;
ret = svm_invoke_exit_handler(vcpu, SVM_EXIT_CPUID);
if (!ret) {
ret = -EINVAL;
break;
}
cpuid_reg = get_ghcb_msr_bits(svm,
GHCB_MSR_CPUID_REG_MASK,
GHCB_MSR_CPUID_REG_POS);
if (cpuid_reg == 0)
cpuid_value = vcpu->arch.regs[VCPU_REGS_RAX];
else if (cpuid_reg == 1)
cpuid_value = vcpu->arch.regs[VCPU_REGS_RBX];
else if (cpuid_reg == 2)
cpuid_value = vcpu->arch.regs[VCPU_REGS_RCX];
else
cpuid_value = vcpu->arch.regs[VCPU_REGS_RDX];
set_ghcb_msr_bits(svm, cpuid_value,
GHCB_MSR_CPUID_VALUE_MASK,
GHCB_MSR_CPUID_VALUE_POS);
set_ghcb_msr_bits(svm, GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP,
GHCB_MSR_INFO_MASK,
GHCB_MSR_INFO_POS);
break;
}
