Re: [PATCH v1] kvm: x86: Revise guest_fpu xcomp_bv field

[Sean Christopherson]

On Mon, Feb 08, 2021, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/8/21 8:16 AM, Jing Liu wrote:
> > -#define XSTATE_COMPACTION_ENABLED (1ULL << 63)
> > -
> >  static void fill_xsave(u8 *dest, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >  {
> >  	struct xregs_state *xsave = &vcpu->arch.guest_fpu->state.xsave;
> > @@ -4494,7 +4492,8 @@ static void load_xsave(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u8 *src)
> >  	/* Set XSTATE_BV and possibly XCOMP_BV.  */
> >  	xsave->header.xfeatures = xstate_bv;
> >  	if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVES))
> > -		xsave->header.xcomp_bv = host_xcr0 | XSTATE_COMPACTION_ENABLED;
> > +		xsave->header.xcomp_bv = XCOMP_BV_COMPACTED_FORMAT |
> > +					 xfeatures_mask_all;

This is wrong, xfeatures_mask_all also tracks supervisor states.

> Are 'host_xcr0' and 'xfeatures_mask_all' really interchangeable?  If so,
> shouldn't we just remove 'host_xcr0' everywhere?

I think so?  But use xfeatures_mask_user().

In theory, host_xss can also be replaced with the _supervisor() and _dynamic()
variants.  That code needs a good hard look at the _dynamic() features, which is
currently just architectural LBRs.  E.g. I wouldn't be surprised if KVM currently
fails to save/restore arch LBRs due to the bit not being set in host_xss.