On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:39:54 -0300 Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:18:47PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:09:04 -0300 > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:22:27PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > > > target-i386/cpu.c | 68 > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > > > 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c > > > > index 7734613..a154e89 100644 > > > > --- a/target-i386/cpu.c > > > > +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c > > > > @@ -106,8 +106,8 @@ typedef struct model_features_t { > > > > uint32_t cpuid; > > > > } model_features_t; > > > > > > > > -int check_cpuid = 0; > > > > -int enforce_cpuid = 0; > > > > +bool check_cpuid; > > > > +bool enforce_cpuid; > > > > > > > > void host_cpuid(uint32_t function, uint32_t count, > > > > uint32_t *eax, uint32_t *ebx, uint32_t *ecx, uint32_t > > > > *edx) > > > > @@ -579,19 +579,20 @@ static int unavailable_host_feature(struct > > > > model_features_t *f, uint32_t mask) > > > > * their way to the guest. Note: ft[].check_feat ideally should be > > > > * specified via a guest_def field to suppress report of extraneous > > > > flags. > > > > */ > > > > -static int check_features_against_host(x86_def_t *guest_def) > > > > +static int check_features_against_host(X86CPU *cpu) > > > > { > > > > + CPUX86State *env = &cpu->env; > > > > x86_def_t host_def; > > > > uint32_t mask; > > > > int rv, i; > > > > struct model_features_t ft[] = { > > > > - {&guest_def->features, &host_def.features, > > > > + {&env->cpuid_features, &host_def.features, > > > > ~0, feature_name, 0x00000000}, > > > > - {&guest_def->ext_features, &host_def.ext_features, > > > > + {&env->cpuid_ext_features, &host_def.ext_features, > > > > ~CPUID_EXT_HYPERVISOR, ext_feature_name, 0x00000001}, > > > > - {&guest_def->ext2_features, &host_def.ext2_features, > > > > + {&env->cpuid_ext2_features, &host_def.ext2_features, > > > > ~PPRO_FEATURES, ext2_feature_name, 0x80000000}, > > > > - {&guest_def->ext3_features, &host_def.ext3_features, > > > > + {&env->cpuid_ext3_features, &host_def.ext3_features, > > > > ~CPUID_EXT3_SVM, ext3_feature_name, 0x80000001}}; > > > > > > > > cpu_x86_fill_host(&host_def); > > > > @@ -1030,6 +1031,43 @@ static void x86_set_hv_vapic(Object *obj, > > > > Visitor *v, void *opaque, > > > > } > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > +static void x86_cpuid_get_check(Object *obj, Visitor *v, void *opaque, > > > > + const char *name, Error > > > > **errp) > > > > +{ > > > > + visit_type_bool(v, &check_cpuid, name, errp); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static void x86_cpuid_set_check(Object *obj, Visitor *v, void *opaque, > > > > + const char *name, Error > > > > **errp) > > > > +{ > > > > + bool value; > > > > + > > > > + visit_type_bool(v, &value, name, errp); > > > > + if (error_is_set(errp)) { > > > > + return; > > > > + } > > > > + check_cpuid = value; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static void x86_cpuid_get_enforce(Object *obj, Visitor *v, void > > > > *opaque, > > > > + const char *name, Error > > > > **errp) > > > > +{ > > > > + visit_type_bool(v, &enforce_cpuid, name, errp); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static void x86_cpuid_set_enforce(Object *obj, Visitor *v, void > > > > *opaque, > > > > + const char *name, Error > > > > **errp) > > > > +{ > > > > + bool value; > > > > + > > > > + visit_type_bool(v, &value, name, errp); > > > > + if (error_is_set(errp)) { > > > > + return; > > > > + } > > > > + enforce_cpuid = value; > > > > + object_property_set_bool(obj, value, "check", errp); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > static void cpudef_2_x86_cpu(X86CPU *cpu, x86_def_t *def, Error **errp) > > > > { > > > > CPUX86State *env = &cpu->env; > > > > @@ -1225,10 +1263,6 @@ static int cpu_x86_find_by_name(X86CPU *cpu, > > > > x86_def_t *x86_cpu_def, > > > > x86_cpu_def->ext3_features &= ~minus_ext3_features; > > > > x86_cpu_def->kvm_features &= ~minus_kvm_features; > > > > x86_cpu_def->svm_features &= ~minus_svm_features; > > > > - if (check_cpuid) { > > > > - if (check_features_against_host(x86_cpu_def) && enforce_cpuid) > > > > - goto error; > > > > - } > > > > g_free(s); > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > @@ -1923,6 +1957,12 @@ void x86_cpu_realize(Object *obj, Error **errp) > > > > env->cpuid_svm_features &= TCG_SVM_FEATURES; > > > > } > > > > > > > > + if (check_cpuid && check_features_against_host(cpu) > > > > + && enforce_cpuid) { > > > > + error_set(errp, QERR_PERMISSION_DENIED); > > > > + return; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > > > I just noticed that you changed behavior on patch 04/20 and now restore > > > the behavior in this patch: > > > > > > - Before patch 04/20, the feature check was being done after the > > > features were filtered according to the TCG support (meaning a feature > > > not supported by TCG will not trigger enforce/check errors). > > before 04/20 check is done before TCG features filtering in > > cpu_x86_find_by_name() and then later in cpu_x86_register() features are > > TCG filtered. > > Right, my mistake. The check was done on cpu_x86_find_by_name() (before > the filtering), but for some reason I was thinking it was done much > later. Nevermind. > > > > > > - After patch 04/20, the check was being done _before_ the features were > > > filtered according to TCG support (meaning a feature not supported by > > > TCG would trigger enforce/check errors). > > > - With this patch, the old behavior is restored. > > after 04/20, it is the same as before, i.e realize is called after > > cpu_x86_register(). > > > > it's by mistake that in this patch I've put check after TCG filtering, I'll > > fix it and do check before it. > > Good. I think it's a good idea to make the check before the filtering > (and eventually, instead of checking the host CPU features directly, the > check on TCG mode should be based on TCG_FEATURES, and the check on KVM > mode should be based on GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, but that's another issue). If you are not opposed to improving checks later, I'd better re-post this series with original behavior. Improving checks is kind of orthogonal to moving features into properties. > > > > > > > I'm not sure which behavior is better. But we surely shouldn't silently > > > move back and forth between those two modes. > > > > > > IMO, checking _before_ the TCG filtering is better, as it's more > > > predictable. it means having lots of warnings in case too-new CPU models > > > are chosen in TCG model, but that's exactly the point. > > > > > > > > > > #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY > > > > qemu_register_reset(x86_cpu_machine_reset_cb, cpu); > > > > #endif > > > > @@ -1964,6 +2004,12 @@ static void x86_cpu_initfn(Object *obj) > > > > object_property_add(obj, "tsc-frequency", "int", > > > > x86_cpuid_get_tsc_freq, > > > > x86_cpuid_set_tsc_freq, NULL, NULL, NULL); > > > > + object_property_add(obj, "check", "bool", > > > > + x86_cpuid_get_check, > > > > + x86_cpuid_set_check, NULL, NULL, NULL); > > > > + object_property_add(obj, "enforce", "bool", > > > > + x86_cpuid_get_enforce, > > > > + x86_cpuid_set_enforce, NULL, NULL, NULL); > > > > #if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) > > > > object_property_add(obj, "hv_spinlocks", "int", > > > > x86_get_hv_spinlocks, > > > > -- > > > > 1.7.11.2 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Eduardo > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Igor > > -- > Eduardo > -- Regards, Igor