Re: [PATCH v15 19/41] KVM: x86: Enable CET virtualization for VMX and advertise to userspace

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025, Binbin Wu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/13/2025 7:22 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > From: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Expose CET features to guest if KVM/host can support them, clear CPUID
> > feature bits if KVM/host cannot support.
> > 
> > Set CPUID feature bits so that CET features are available in guest CPUID.
> > Add CR4.CET bit support in order to allow guest set CET master control
> > bit.
> > 
> > Disable KVM CET feature if unrestricted_guest is unsupported/disabled as
> > KVM does not support emulating CET.
> > 
> > The CET load-bits in VM_ENTRY/VM_EXIT control fields should be set to make
> > guest CET xstates isolated from host's.
> > 
> > On platforms with VMX_BASIC[bit56] == 0, inject #CP at VMX entry with error
> > code will fail, and if VMX_BASIC[bit56] == 1, #CP injection with or without
> > error code is allowed. Disable CET feature bits if the MSR bit is cleared
> > so that nested VMM can inject #CP if and only if VMX_BASIC[bit56] == 1.
> > 
> > Don't expose CET feature if either of {U,S}_CET xstate bits is cleared
> > in host XSS or if XSAVES isn't supported.
> > 
> > CET MSRs are reset to 0s after RESET, power-up and INIT, clear guest CET
> > xsave-area fields so that guest CET MSRs are reset to 0s after the events.
> > 
> > Meanwhile explicitly disable SHSTK and IBT for SVM because CET KVM enabling
> > for SVM is not ready.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Mathias Krause <minipli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Mathias Krause <minipli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: John Allen <john.allen@xxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Chao Gao <chao.gao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Binbin Wu <binbin.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> One nit below.
> 
> [...]
> > 			\
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index 15f208c44cbd..c78acab2ff3f 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -226,7 +226,8 @@ static struct kvm_user_return_msrs __percpu *user_return_msrs;
> >    * PT via guest XSTATE would clobber perf state), i.e. KVM doesn't support
> >    * IA32_XSS[bit 8] (guests can/must use RDMSR/WRMSR to save/restore PT MSRs).
> >    */
> > -#define KVM_SUPPORTED_XSS     0
> > +#define KVM_SUPPORTED_XSS	(XFEATURE_MASK_CET_USER | \
> > +				 XFEATURE_MASK_CET_KERNEL)
> 
> Since XFEATURE_MASK_CET_USER and XFEATURE_MASK_CET_KERNEL are always checked or
> set together, does it make sense to use a macro for the two bits?

Good call.  I was going to say "eh, we can do that later", but it's a massive
improvement for readability.