On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:37:44AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 10:43 +0100, KarimAllah Ahmed wrote:
> > On 01/29/2018 09:46 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > Reading the code and comparing with the SDM, I can't see where we're
> > > ever setting VM_EXIT_MSR_STORE_{ADDR,COUNT} except in the nested
> > > case...
> > Hmmm ... you are probably right! I think all users of this interface
> > always trap + update save area and never passthrough the MSR. That is
> > why only LOAD is needed *so far*.
> >
> > Okay, let me sort this out in v3 then.
>
> I'm starting to think a variant of Ashok's patch might actually be the
> simpler approach, and not "premature optimisation". Especially if we
> need to support the !cpu_has_vmx_msr_bitmaps() case?
>
> Start with vmx->spec_ctrl set to zero. When first touched, make it
> passthrough (but not atomically switched) and set a flag (e.g.
> "spec_ctrl_live") which triggers the 'restore_branch_speculation' and
> 'save_and_restrict_branch_speculation' behaviours. Except don't use
> those macros. Those can look something like
>
> /* If this vCPU has touched SPEC_CTRL then restore its value if needed */
> if (vmx->spec_ctrl_live && vmx->spec_ctrl)
> wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, vmx->spec_ctrl);
> /* vmentry is serialising on affected CPUs, so the conditional branch is
> safe */
>
>
> ... and, respectively, ...
>
> /* If this vCPU has touched SPEC_CTRL then save its value and ensure we have
> zero */
> if (vmx->spec_ctrl_live) {
> rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, vmx->spec_ctrl);
> if (vmx->spec_ctrl)
> wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, 0);
> }
>
>
> Perhaps we can ditch the separate 'spec_ctrl_live' flag and check the
> pass-through MSR bitmap directly, in the case that it exists?
Or the cpuid_flag as that would determine whether the MSR bitmap intercept
is set or not.
