On 6/8/2017 5:01 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 08/06/2017 22:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 06/08/2017 05:02 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
On 6/8/2017 3:51 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
What may be needed is making sure X86_FEATURE_SME is not set for PV
guests.
And that may be something that Xen will need to control through either
CPUID or MSR support for the PV guests.
Only on newer versions of Xen. On earlier versions (2-3 years old) leaf
0x80000007 is passed to the guest unchanged. And so is MSR_K8_SYSCFG.
The SME feature is in leaf 0x8000001f, is that leaf passed to the guest
unchanged?
Oh, I misread the patch where X86_FEATURE_SME is defined. Then all
versions, including the current one, pass it unchanged.
All that's needed is setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_SME) in
xen_init_capabilities().
AMD processors still don't support CPUID Faulting (or at least, I
couldn't find any reference to it in the latest docs), so we cannot
actually hide SME from a guest which goes looking at native CPUID.
Furthermore, I'm not aware of any CPUID masking support covering that leaf.
However, if Linux is using the paravirtual cpuid hook, things are
slightly better.
On Xen 4.9 and later, no guests will see the feature. On earlier
versions of Xen (before I fixed the logic), plain domUs will not see the
feature, while dom0 will.
For safely, I'd recommend unilaterally clobbering the feature as Boris
suggested. There is no way SME will be supportable on a per-PV guest
That may be too late. Early boot support in head_64.S will make calls to
check for the feature (through CPUID and MSR), set the sme_me_mask and
encrypt the kernel in place. Is there another way to approach this?
basis, although (as far as I am aware) Xen as a whole would be able to
encompass itself and all of its PV guests inside one single SME instance.
Yes, that is correct.
Thanks,
Tom
~Andrew
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
