Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] KVM: SVM: Add Bus Lock Detect support

[Ravi Bangoria]

Sean,

>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> index e1b6a16e97c0..9f3d31a5d231 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
>> @@ -1047,7 +1047,8 @@ void svm_update_lbrv(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  {
>>  	struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
>>  	bool current_enable_lbrv = svm->vmcb->control.virt_ext & LBR_CTL_ENABLE_MASK;
>> -	bool enable_lbrv = (svm_get_lbr_vmcb(svm)->save.dbgctl & DEBUGCTLMSR_LBR) ||
>> +	u64 dbgctl_buslock_lbr = DEBUGCTLMSR_BUS_LOCK_DETECT | DEBUGCTLMSR_LBR;
>> +	bool enable_lbrv = (svm_get_lbr_vmcb(svm)->save.dbgctl & dbgctl_buslock_lbr) ||
>>  			    (is_guest_mode(vcpu) && guest_can_use(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_LBRV) &&
>>  			    (svm->nested.ctl.virt_ext & LBR_CTL_ENABLE_MASK));
> 
> Out of sight, but this leads to calling svm_enable_lbrv() even when the guest
> just wants to enable BUS_LOCK_DETECT.  Ignoring SEV-ES guests, KVM will intercept
> writes to DEBUGCTL, so can't KVM defer mucking with the intercepts and
> svm_copy_lbrs() until the guest actually wants to use LBRs?
> 
> Hmm, and I think the existing code is broken.  If L1 passes DEBUGCTL through to
> L2, then KVM will handles writes to L1's effective value.  And if L1 also passes
> through the LBRs, then KVM will fail to update the MSR bitmaps for vmcb02.
> 
> Ah, it's just a performance issue though, because KVM will still emulate RDMSR.
> 
> Ugh, this code is silly.  The LBR MSRs are read-only, yet KVM passes them through
> for write.
> 
> Anyways, I'm thinking something like this?  Note, using msr_write_intercepted()
> is wrong, because that'll check L2's bitmap if is_guest_mode(), and the idea is
> to use L1's bitmap as the canary.
> 
> static void svm_update_passthrough_lbrs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool passthrough)
> {
> 	struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
> 
> 	KVM_BUG_ON(!passthrough && sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm), vcpu->kvm);
> 
> 	if (!msr_write_intercepted(vcpu, MSR_IA32_LASTBRANCHFROMIP) == passthrough)
> 		return;
> 
> 	set_msr_interception(vcpu, svm->msrpm, MSR_IA32_LASTBRANCHFROMIP, passthrough, 0);
> 	set_msr_interception(vcpu, svm->msrpm, MSR_IA32_LASTBRANCHTOIP, passthrough, 0);
> 	set_msr_interception(vcpu, svm->msrpm, MSR_IA32_LASTINTFROMIP, passthrough, 0);
> 	set_msr_interception(vcpu, svm->msrpm, MSR_IA32_LASTINTTOIP, passthrough, 0);
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * When enabling, move the LBR msrs to vmcb02 so that L2 can see them,
> 	 * and then move them back to vmcb01 when disabling to avoid copying
> 	 * them on nested guest entries.
> 	 */
> 	if (is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
> 		if (passthrough)
> 			svm_copy_lbrs(svm->vmcb, svm->vmcb01.ptr);
> 		else
> 			svm_copy_lbrs(svm->vmcb01.ptr, svm->vmcb);
> 	}
> }
> 
> void svm_enable_lbrv(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> 	struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
> 
> 	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!sev_es_guest(vcpu->kvm)))
> 		return;
> 
> 	svm->vmcb->control.virt_ext |= LBR_CTL_ENABLE_MASK;
> 	svm_update_passthrough_lbrs(vcpu, true);
> 
> 	set_msr_interception(vcpu, svm->msrpm, MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, 1, 1);
> }
> 
> static struct vmcb *svm_get_lbr_vmcb(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> {
> 	/*
> 	 * If LBR virtualization is disabled, the LBR MSRs are always kept in
> 	 * vmcb01.  If LBR virtualization is enabled and L1 is running VMs of
> 	 * its own, the MSRs are moved between vmcb01 and vmcb02 as needed.
> 	 */
> 	return svm->vmcb->control.virt_ext & LBR_CTL_ENABLE_MASK ? svm->vmcb :
> 								   svm->vmcb01.ptr;
> }
> 
> void svm_update_lbrv(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> 	struct vcpu_svm *svm = to_svm(vcpu);
> 	u64 guest_debugctl = svm_get_lbr_vmcb(svm)->save.dbgctl;
> 	bool enable_lbrv = (guest_debugctl & DEBUGCTLMSR_LBR) ||
> 			    (is_guest_mode(vcpu) && guest_can_use(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_LBRV) &&
> 			    (svm->nested.ctl.virt_ext & LBR_CTL_ENABLE_MASK));
> 
> 	if (enable_lbrv || (guest_debugctl & DEBUGCTLMSR_BUS_LOCK_DETECT))
> 		svm->vmcb->control.virt_ext |= LBR_CTL_ENABLE_MASK;
> 	else
> 		svm->vmcb->control.virt_ext &= ~LBR_CTL_ENABLE_MASK;
> 
> 	svm_update_passthrough_lbrs(vcpu, enable_lbrv);
> }

This refactored code looks fine. I did some sanity testing with SVM/SEV/SEV-ES
guests and not seeing any issues. I'll respin with above change included.

Thanks for the feedback,
Ravi