Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Track supported ARCH_CAPABILITIES in kvm_caps

[Sean Christopherson]

On Fri, May 19, 2023, Chao Gao wrote:
> +Pawan, could you share your thoughts on questions about FB_CLEAR?
> 
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:33:15AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >I do like snapshotting and then updating the value, even though there's likely no
> >meaningful performance benefit, as that would provide a place to document that
> >the "supported" value is dynamic.  Though the fact that it's dynamic is arguably a bug
> >in its own right, e.g. if userspace isn't careful, a VM can have vCPUs with different
> >values for ARCH_CAPABILITIES.  But fixing that is probably a fool's errand.  So
> 
> I am not sure if fixing it is fool. There would be some other problem:

Heh, "fool's errand" is an idiom that means doing something has almost no chance
of succeeding, not that doing something is foolish.  I 100% agree that there's
value in presenting a consistent model to the guest, but there are conflicting
requirements in play.  To present a consistent model, KVM essentially needs to
disallow changing the module param after VMs/vCPUs have been created, but that
would prevent userspace from toggling the param while VMs are running, e.g. in
response to a new vulnerability.

The only feasible idea I can think of is to disallow *disabling* the mitigation
while VMs/vCPUs are active.  But then that prevents turning the L1D flush mitigation
back off if some other mitigation is deployed, e.g. via livepatch, policy update,
etc.

That's why I said trying to fix the knob is probably a fool's errand.  AFAICT,
there's no straightforward solution that makes everybody happy.  :-/