Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] arch/x86/kvm: Refactor l1d flush lifecycle management

[Singh, Balbir]

On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 11:49 +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-04-24 at 13:59 -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > 
> > On 4/23/20 9:01 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > Split out the allocation and free routines to be used in a follow
> > > up set of patches (to reuse for L1D flushing).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <sblbir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/x86/include/asm/cacheflush.h |  3 +++
> > >   arch/x86/kernel/Makefile          |  1 +
> > >   arch/x86/kernel/l1d_flush.c       | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >   arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c            | 25 +++------------------
> > >   4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > >   create mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/l1d_flush.c
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cacheflush.h
> > > b/arch/x86/include/asm/cacheflush.h
> > > index 63feaf2a5f93..bac56fcd9790 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cacheflush.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cacheflush.h
> > > @@ -6,6 +6,9 @@
> > >   #include <asm-generic/cacheflush.h>
> > >   #include <asm/special_insns.h>
> > > 
> > > +#define L1D_CACHE_ORDER 4
> > 
> > Since this is becoming a generic function now, shouldn't this value be
> > based on the actual L1D cache size? Is this value based on a 32KB data
> > cache and the idea is to write twice the size of the cache to be sure that
> > every entry has been replaced - with the second 32KB to catch the odd line
> > that might not have been pulled in?
> > 
> 
> Currently the only users are VMX L1TF and optional prctl(). It should be
> based
> on actual L1D cache size, I checked a little bit and the largest L1D cache
> size across various x86 bits is 64K. so there are three options here:
> 
> 1. We refactor the code, we would need to save the L1D cache size and use
> cpu_dev callbacks for L1D flush
> 2. We can make the current code depend on L1D_FLUSH MSR and enable it only
> when that feature is available. There would be no software fallback. Then
> follow it up with #1
> 3. We keep the code as is on the assumption that all of L1D <= 64K across
> the
> current platforms and we do #1 in a followup (since the prctl is optional
> and
> the only other user is the VMX code).
> 
> Thanks for the review,
> Balbir Singh.
> 

Tom,

I have the following changes that I think will suffice for now (these are not
properly formatted, but you get the idea)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/l1d_flush.c b/arch/x86/kernel/l1d_flush.c
index a754b6c288a9..7fec0cc8f85c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/l1d_flush.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/l1d_flush.c
@@ -92,6 +92,9 @@ int l1d_flush_init_once(void)
 {
        int ret = 0;
 
+       if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
+               return -ENOTSUPP;
+
        if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FLUSH_L1D) || l1d_flush_pages)
                return ret;


Does that satisfy your comments about patch 1/6 and 2/6 in the series?

Balbir Singh.