Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 10/34] x86, x86/mm, x86/xen, olpc: Use __va() against just the physical address in cr3

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 06/09/2017 02:36 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> 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?


PV guests don't go through Linux x86 early boot code. They start at
xen_start_kernel() (well, xen-head.S:startup_xen(), really) and  merge
with baremetal path at x86_64_start_reservations() (for 64-bit).


-boris

>
>> 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>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]
  Powered by Linux