On Tue, Apr 20, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 05:31:07PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > + case KVM_HC_PAGE_ENC_STATUS: {
> > > > + u64 gpa = a0, npages = a1, enc = a2;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = -KVM_ENOSYS;
> > > > + if (!vcpu->kvm->arch.hypercall_exit_enabled)
> > >
> > > I don't follow, why does the hypercall need to be gated by a capability?
> > > What
> > > would break if this were changed to?
> > >
> > > if (!guest_pv_has(vcpu, KVM_FEATURE_HC_PAGE_ENC_STATUS))
> > >
> >
> > But, the above indicates host support for page_enc_status_hc, so we want
> > to ensure that host supports and has enabled support for the hypercall
> > exit, i.e., hypercall has been enabled.
>
> I still don't see how parroting back KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, i.e.
> "unintentionally"
> setting KVM_FEATURE_HC_PAGE_ENC_STATUS, would break anything. Sure, the guest
> does unnecessary hypercalls, but they're eaten by KVM. On the flip side,
> gating
> the hypercall on the capability, and especially only the capability, creates
> weird scenarios where the guest can observe KVM_FEATURE_HC_PAGE_ENC_STATUS=1
> but fail the hypercall. Those would be fairly clearcut VMM bugs, but at the
> same time KVM is essentially going out of its way to manufacture the problem.
Doh, I was thinking of the MSR behavior, not the hypercall. I'll respond to
Paolo's mail, I have one more hail mary idea.
