Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: x86: SGX vs. XCR0 cleanups

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 5/3/23 18:08, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Stop adjusting the guest's CPUID info for the allowed XFRM (a.k.a. XCR0)
> for SGX enclaves.  Past me didn't understand the roles and responsibilities
> between userspace and KVM with respect to CPUID leafs, i.e. I thought I was
> being helpful by having KVM adjust the entries.
>
> This is clearly an ABI change, but QEMU does the right thing and AFAIK no
> other VMMs support SGX (yet), so I'm hopeful/confident that we can excise
> the ugly before userspace starts depending on the bad behavior.
>   
> v2:
>   - Collect reviews/testing. [Kai]
>   - Require FP+SSE to always be set in XFRM, and exempt them from the XFRM
>     vs. XCR0 check. [Kai]
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230405005911.423699-1-seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Sean Christopherson (3):
>    KVM: VMX: Don't rely _only_ on CPUID to enforce XCR0 restrictions for
>      ECREATE
>    KVM: x86: Don't adjust guest's CPUID.0x12.1 (allowed SGX enclave XFRM)
>    KVM: x86: Open code supported XCR0 calculation in
>      kvm_vcpu_after_set_cpuid()
>
>   arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c   | 43 ++++++++++--------------------------------
>   arch/x86/kvm/vmx/sgx.c | 11 +++++++++--
>   2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 5c291b93e5d665380dbecc6944973583f9565ee5

Queued, thanks.  But why patch 3?  Small functions are nice and remove 
the need to remember what is in EDX:EAX of CPUID[0xD,0].

Paolo