Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM:SVM: Enable INVPCID feature on AMD

From: Jim Mattson
Date: Fri Jun 12 2020 - 20:04:36 EST

Next message: Matt Turner: "Re: [PATCH] alpha: Fix build around srm_sysrq_reboot_op"
Previous message: John Stultz: "Re: [GIT PULL] sound fixes for 5.8-rc1"
In reply to: Babu Moger: "Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM:SVM: Enable INVPCID feature on AMD"
Next in thread: Paolo Bonzini: "Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM:SVM: Enable INVPCID feature on AMD"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:47 PM Babu Moger <babu.moger@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/12/20 3:10 PM, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:35 PM Babu Moger <babu.moger@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 6:51 PM
> >>> To: Moger, Babu <Babu.Moger@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> >>> the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sean Christopherson
> >>> <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx>; Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> >>> Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>; H . Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>; Paolo
> >>> Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>; Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> >>> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> >>> kvm list <kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM:SVM: Enable INVPCID feature on AMD
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:48 PM Babu Moger <babu.moger@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The following intercept is added for INVPCID instruction:
> >>>> Code Name Cause
> >>>> A2h VMEXIT_INVPCID INVPCID instruction
> >>>>
> >>>> The following bit is added to the VMCB layout control area
> >>>> to control intercept of INVPCID:
> >>>> Byte Offset Bit(s) Function
> >>>> 14h 2 intercept INVPCID
> >>>>
> >>>> For the guests with nested page table (NPT) support, the INVPCID
> >>>> feature works as running it natively. KVM does not need to do any
> >>>> special handling in this case.
> >>>>
> >>>> Interceptions are required in the following cases.
> >>>> 1. If the guest tries to disable the feature when the underlying
> >>>> hardware supports it. In this case hypervisor needs to report #UD.
> >>>
> >>> Per the AMD documentation, attempts to use INVPCID at CPL>0 will
> >>> result in a #GP, regardless of the intercept bit. If the guest CPUID
> >>> doesn't enumerate the feature, shouldn't the instruction raise #UD
> >>> regardless of CPL? This seems to imply that we should intercept #GP
> >>> and decode the instruction to see if we should synthesize #UD instead.
> >>
> >> Purpose here is to report UD when the guest CPUID doesn't enumerate the
> >> INVPCID feature When Bare-metal supports it. It seems to work fine for
> >> that purpose. You are right. The #GP for CPL>0 takes precedence over
> >> interception. No. I am not planning to intercept GP.
> >
> > WIthout intercepting #GP, you fail to achieve your stated purpose.
>
> I think I have misunderstood this part. I was not inteding to change the
> #GP behaviour. I will remove this part. My intension of these series is to
> handle invpcid in shadow page mode. I have verified that part. Hope I did
> not miss anything else.

You don't really have to intercept INVPCID when tdp is in use, right?
There are certainly plenty of operations for which kvm does not
properly raise #UD when they aren't enumerated in the guest CPUID.

> >> I will change the text. How about this?
> >>
> >> Interceptions are required in the following cases.
> >> 1. If the guest CPUID doesn't enumerate the INVPCID feature when the
> >> underlying hardware supports it, hypervisor needs to report UD. However,
> >> #GP for CPL>0 takes precedence over interception.
> >
> > This text is not internally consistent. In one sentence, you say that
> > "hypervisor needs to report #UD." In the next sentence, you are
> > essentially saying that the hypervisor doesn't need to report #UD.
> > Which is it?
> >
> >>>> 2. When the guest is running with shadow page table enabled, in
> >>>> this case the hypervisor needs to handle the tlbflush based on the
> >>>> type of invpcid instruction type.
> >>>>
> >>>> AMD documentation for INVPCID feature is available at "AMD64
> >>>> Architecture Programmerâs Manual Volume 2: System Programming,
> >>>> Pub. 24593 Rev. 3.34(or later)"
> >>>>
> >>>> The documentation can be obtained at the links below:
> >>>> Link:
> >>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.a
> >>> md.com%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2FTechDocs%2F24593.pdf&data=02%7C01%7
> >>> Cbabu.moger%40amd.com%7C36861b25f6d143e3b38e08d80e624472%7C3dd8
> >>> 961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637275163374103811&s
> >>> data=E%2Fdb6T%2BdO4nrtUoqhKidF6XyorsWrphj6O4WwNZpmYA%3D&res
> >>> erved=0
> >>>> Link:
> >>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.
> >>> kernel.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D206537&data=02%7C01%7Cbabu.m
> >>> oger%40amd.com%7C36861b25f6d143e3b38e08d80e624472%7C3dd8961fe488
> >>> 4e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637275163374103811&sdata=b81
> >>> 9W%2FhKS93%2BAp3QvcsR0BwTQpUVUFMbIaNaisgWHRY%3D&reserved=
> >>> 0
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Babu Moger <babu.moger@xxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h | 4 ++++
> >>>> arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h | 2 ++
> >>>> arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 42
> >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> >>>> index 62649fba8908..6488094f67fa 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/svm.h
> >>>> @@ -55,6 +55,10 @@ enum {
> >>>> INTERCEPT_RDPRU,
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> +/* Extended Intercept bits */
> >>>> +enum {
> >>>> + INTERCEPT_INVPCID = 2,
> >>>> +};
> >>>>
> >>>> struct __attribute__ ((__packed__)) vmcb_control_area {
> >>>> u32 intercept_cr;
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h
> >>> b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h
> >>>> index 2e8a30f06c74..522d42dfc28c 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h
> >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/svm.h
> >>>> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@
> >>>> #define SVM_EXIT_MWAIT_COND 0x08c
> >>>> #define SVM_EXIT_XSETBV 0x08d
> >>>> #define SVM_EXIT_RDPRU 0x08e
> >>>> +#define SVM_EXIT_INVPCID 0x0a2
> >>>> #define SVM_EXIT_NPF 0x400
> >>>> #define SVM_EXIT_AVIC_INCOMPLETE_IPI 0x401
> >>>> #define SVM_EXIT_AVIC_UNACCELERATED_ACCESS 0x402
> >>>> @@ -171,6 +172,7 @@
> >>>> { SVM_EXIT_MONITOR, "monitor" }, \
> >>>> { SVM_EXIT_MWAIT, "mwait" }, \
> >>>> { SVM_EXIT_XSETBV, "xsetbv" }, \
> >>>> + { SVM_EXIT_INVPCID, "invpcid" }, \
> >>>> { SVM_EXIT_NPF, "npf" }, \
> >>>> { SVM_EXIT_AVIC_INCOMPLETE_IPI, "avic_incomplete_ipi" }, \
> >>>> { SVM_EXIT_AVIC_UNACCELERATED_ACCESS,
> >>> "avic_unaccelerated_access" }, \
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> >>>> index 285e5e1ff518..82d974338f68 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> >>>> @@ -813,6 +813,11 @@ static __init void svm_set_cpu_caps(void)
> >>>> if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LS_CFG_SSBD) ||
> >>>> boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_AMD_SSBD))
> >>>> kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_VIRT_SSBD);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /* Enable INVPCID if both PCID and INVPCID enabled */
> >>>> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PCID) &&
> >>>> + boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_INVPCID))
> >>>> + kvm_cpu_cap_set(X86_FEATURE_INVPCID);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> static __init int svm_hardware_setup(void)
> >>>> @@ -1099,6 +1104,17 @@ static void init_vmcb(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> >>>> clr_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_PAUSE);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * Intercept INVPCID instruction only if shadow page table is
> >>>> + * enabled. Interception is not required with nested page table.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_INVPCID)) {
> >>>> + if (!npt_enabled)
> >>>> + set_extended_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_INVPCID);
> >>>> + else
> >>>> + clr_extended_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_INVPCID);
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> if (kvm_vcpu_apicv_active(&svm->vcpu))
> >>>> avic_init_vmcb(svm);
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -2715,6 +2731,23 @@ static int mwait_interception(struct vcpu_svm
> >>> *svm)
> >>>> return nop_interception(svm);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static int invpcid_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = &svm->vcpu;
> >>>> + unsigned long type;
> >>>> + gva_t gva;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * For an INVPCID intercept:
> >>>> + * EXITINFO1 provides the linear address of the memory operand.
> >>>> + * EXITINFO2 provides the contents of the register operand.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + type = svm->vmcb->control.exit_info_2;
> >>>> + gva = svm->vmcb->control.exit_info_1;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return kvm_handle_invpcid_types(vcpu, gva, type);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> static int (*const svm_exit_handlers[])(struct vcpu_svm *svm) = {
> >>>> [SVM_EXIT_READ_CR0] = cr_interception,
> >>>> [SVM_EXIT_READ_CR3] = cr_interception,
> >>>> @@ -2777,6 +2810,7 @@ static int (*const svm_exit_handlers[])(struct
> >>> vcpu_svm *svm) = {
> >>>> [SVM_EXIT_MWAIT] = mwait_interception,
> >>>> [SVM_EXIT_XSETBV] = xsetbv_interception,
> >>>> [SVM_EXIT_RDPRU] = rdpru_interception,
> >>>> + [SVM_EXIT_INVPCID] = invpcid_interception,
> >>>> [SVM_EXIT_NPF] = npf_interception,
> >>>> [SVM_EXIT_RSM] = rsm_interception,
> >>>> [SVM_EXIT_AVIC_INCOMPLETE_IPI] =
> >>> avic_incomplete_ipi_interception,
> >>>> @@ -3562,6 +3596,14 @@ static void svm_cpuid_update(struct kvm_vcpu
> >>> *vcpu)
> >>>> svm->nrips_enabled = kvm_cpu_cap_has(X86_FEATURE_NRIPS) &&
> >>>> guest_cpuid_has(&svm->vcpu, X86_FEATURE_NRIPS);
> >>>>
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * Intercept INVPCID instruction if the baremetal has the support
> >>>> + * but the guest doesn't claim the feature.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_INVPCID) &&
> >>>> + !guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_INVPCID))
> >>>> + set_extended_intercept(svm, INTERCEPT_INVPCID);
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> What if INVPCID is enabled in the guest CPUID later? Shouldn't we then
> >>> clear this intercept bit?
> >>
> >> I assume the feature enable comes in the same code path as this. I can add
> >> "if else" check here if that is what you are suggesting.
> >
> > Yes, that's what I'm suggesting.
> >
> >>>
> >>>> if (!kvm_vcpu_apicv_active(vcpu))
> >>>> return;
> >>>>
> >>>>

Next message: Matt Turner: "Re: [PATCH] alpha: Fix build around srm_sysrq_reboot_op"
Previous message: John Stultz: "Re: [GIT PULL] sound fixes for 5.8-rc1"
In reply to: Babu Moger: "Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM:SVM: Enable INVPCID feature on AMD"
Next in thread: Paolo Bonzini: "Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM:SVM: Enable INVPCID feature on AMD"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]