Re: [RESEND PATCH v3] KVM: x86: Add Intel CPUID.1F cpuid emulation support

[Radim KrÄmÃÅ]

2019-05-26 21:30+0800, Like Xu:
> Add support to expose Intel V2 Extended Topology Enumeration Leaf for
> some new systems with multiple software-visible die within each package.
> 
> Per Intel's SDM, when CPUID executes with EAX set to 1FH, the processor
> returns information about extended topology enumeration data. Software
> must detect the presence of CPUID leaf 1FH by verifying (a) the highest
> leaf index supported by CPUID is >= 1FH, and (b) CPUID.1FH:EBX[15:0]
> reports a non-zero value.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> ==changelog==
> v3:
> - Refine commit message and comment
> 
> v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/25/1246
> 
> - Apply cpuid.1f check rule on Intel SDM page 3-222 Vol.2A
> - Add comment to handle 0x1f anf 0xb in common code
> - Reduce check time in a descending-break style
> 
> v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/22/28
> 
>  arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> index 80a642a0143d..f9b41f0103b3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> @@ -426,6 +426,11 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_ent(struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry, u32 function,
>  
>  	switch (function) {
>  	case 0:
> +		/* Check if the cpuid leaf 0x1f is actually implemented */
> +		if (entry->eax >= 0x1f && (cpuid_ebx(0x1f) & 0x0000ffff)) {
> +			entry->eax = 0x1f;

Sorry for my late reply, but I think this check does more harm than
good.

We'll need to change it if we ever add leaf above 0x1f, which also puts
burden on the new submitter to check that exposing it by an unrelated
feature doesn't break anything.  Just like you had to see whether the
leaf 0x14 is still ok when exposing it without f_intel_pt.

Also, I don't see anything that would make 0x1f worthy of protection
when enabling it also exposes unimplemented leaves (0x14;0x1f).
Zeroing 0x1f.ebx disables it and that is implicitly being done if the
presence check above would fail.

> +			break;
> +		}
>  		entry->eax = min(entry->eax, (u32)(f_intel_pt ? 0x14 : 0xd));

Similarly in the existing code.  If we don't have f_intel_pt, then we
should make sure that leaf 0x14 is not being filled, but we don't really
have to limit the maximal index.

Adding a single clamping like

		/* Limited to the highest leaf implemented in KVM. */
		entry->eax = min(entry->eax, 0x1f);

seems sufficient.

(Passing the hardware value is ok in theory, but it is a cheap way to
 avoid future leaves that cannot be simply zeroed for some weird reason.)

Thanks.