Re: [GIT PULL] x86/cpu for v5.17

[Dave Hansen]

On 1/10/22 10:35, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Not a big deal, I just thought I'd mention it since I reacted to it.
> > And we don't seem to have those vendor checks in any of the other code
> > that uses MSR_CSTAR (just grepping for that and seeing it mentioned in
> > kvm code etc)
> Right, the only point for doing the vendor check I see here is, well,
> because it is Intel who doesn't have CSTAR, let's check for Intel. But
> yeah, we do avoid the vendor checks if it can be helped.
>
> We can do a synthetic X86_FEATURE flag but that would be a waste. So the
> _safe thing and keep the comment sounds optimal to me.
>
> I can whip up a patch ontop if people agree.

There are four basic options here for TDX:

1. Paper over the #VE in the #VE handler itself
2. Do a check for TDX at the wrmsr(MSR_CSTAR) site
3. Do a check for X86_VENDOR_INTEL at the wrmsr(MSR_CSTAR) site
4. Use wrmsr*_safe() and rely on #VE -> fixup_exception()

TDX originally did #1, passed over #2 and settled on #3 because of a 
comment:

	It's an obvious optimization (avoiding the WRMSR with a
	conditional) without TDX because the write is pointless
	independent of TDX." [1]

I think doing wrmsr*_safe() is OK.  But, on TDX systems, it will end up 
taking a weird route:

      WRMSR -> #VE -> hypercall -> ve_raise_fault() -> fixup_exception()

instead of the "normal" _safe route which goes:

      WRMSR -> #GP -> ... -> fixup_exception()

So, we should probably make sure wrmsr*_safe() is fine on TDX before we 
subject ourselves to any additional churn.  Kirill, can you test that out?

1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/87sfvljf5q.ffs@tglx/