On Mon, 2019-04-08 at 10:48 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 05:54:25PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-04-05 at 14:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > > > @@ -1663,6 +1663,12 @@ static int vmx_get_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > > struct
> > > > msr_data *msr_info)
> > > > u32 index;
> > > >
> > > > switch (msr_info->index) {
> > > > + case MSR_TEST_CTL:
> > > > + if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
> > > > + !(vcpu->arch.core_capability &
> > > > CORE_CAP_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT))
> > >
> > > Errm? If the MSR_TEST_CTL is exposed to the guest via CPUID then the
> > > rdmsr() in the guest is not supposed to fail just because
> > > CORE_CAP_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT is not set.
> >
> > you're right.
> >
> > > vmx->msr_test_ctl holds the proper value, which is either 0 or
> > > CORE_CAP_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT until more bits are supported.
> > >
> > > So the chek needs to be guest_cpuid_has(X86_FEATURE_CORE_CAPABILITY).
> >
> > I don't think so. There is no dependecy between
> > guest_cpuid_has(X86_FEATURE_CORE_CAPABILITY) and MSR_TEST_CTL.
> > guest_cpuid_has(X86_FEATURE_CORE_CAPABILITY) only indicates that guest has
> > MSR
> > CORE_CAPABILITY.
> >
> > Due to the fact that MSR_TEST_CTL is emulated with vmx->msr_test_ctl. I
> > think it
> > 's ok to always let userspace or guest to read MSR_TEST_CTL, it just returns
> > the
> > emulated value. Like you said, " vmx->msr_test_ctl holds the proper value,
> > which
> > is either 0 or CORE_CAP_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT until more bits are supported."
>
> Assuming the next version implements "vmx->msr_test_ctl_mask", KVM should
> inject #GP if the guest attempts RDMSR(MSR_TEST_CTL) and the mask is zero.
> It stands to reason that a kernel can only reasonably assume the MSR exists
> if the (virtual) CPU supports at least one feature enabled via MSR_TEST_CTL.
It makes sense to me. Thanks for your reminder.
Will apply it in next version.
