Re: [PATCH v2 31/50] KVM: x86: Do CPU compatibility checks in x86 code
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:09:15PM +,
> > index 66f16458aa97..3571bc968cf8 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -9277,10 +9277,36 @@ static inline void kvm_ops_update(struct
> > kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
> > kvm_pmu_ops_update(ops->pmu_ops);
> > }
> >
> > +struct kvm_cpu_compat_check {
> > + struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops;
> > + int *ret;
>
> minor nitpick: just int ret. I don't see the necessity of the pointer.
> Anyway overall it looks good to me.
...
> > @@ -9360,6 +9386,14 @@ static int __kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct
> > kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
> > if (r != 0)
> > goto out_mmu_exit;
> >
> > + c.ret =
> > + c.ops = ops;
> > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat, , 1);
> > + if (r < 0)
>
> Here it can be "c.ret < 0".
No, because the below goto leads to "return r", i.e. "c.ret" needs to be
propagated
to "r". That's why the code does the admittedly funky "int *ret" thing.
FWIW, this gets cleanup in the end. "struct kvm_cpu_compat_check" goes away and
"" is passed directly to kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat.
> > + goto out_hardware_unsetup;
___
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
Re: [PATCH v2 31/50] KVM: x86: Do CPU compatibility checks in x86 code
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:09:15PM +,
Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Move the CPU compatibility checks to pure x86 code, i.e. drop x86's use
> of the common kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat() arch hook. x86 is the only
> architecture that "needs" to do per-CPU compatibility checks, moving
> the logic to x86 will allow dropping the common code, and will also
> give x86 more control over when/how the compatibility checks are
> performed, e.g. TDX will need to enable hardware (do VMXON) in order to
> perform compatibility checks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 49 --
> 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> index 19e81a99c58f..d7ea1c1175c2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> @@ -5103,7 +5103,7 @@ static int __init svm_init(void)
>* Common KVM initialization _must_ come last, after this, /dev/kvm is
>* exposed to userspace!
>*/
> - r = kvm_init(_init_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
> + r = kvm_init(NULL, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
>__alignof__(struct vcpu_svm), THIS_MODULE);
> if (r)
> goto err_kvm_init;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index 654d81f781da..8deb1bd60c10 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -8592,7 +8592,7 @@ static int __init vmx_init(void)
>* Common KVM initialization _must_ come last, after this, /dev/kvm is
>* exposed to userspace!
>*/
> - r = kvm_init(_init_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_vmx),
> + r = kvm_init(NULL, sizeof(struct vcpu_vmx),
>__alignof__(struct vcpu_vmx), THIS_MODULE);
> if (r)
> goto err_kvm_init;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 66f16458aa97..3571bc968cf8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -9277,10 +9277,36 @@ static inline void kvm_ops_update(struct
> kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
> kvm_pmu_ops_update(ops->pmu_ops);
> }
>
> +struct kvm_cpu_compat_check {
> + struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops;
> + int *ret;
minor nitpick: just int ret. I don't see the necessity of the pointer.
Anyway overall it looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Isaku Yamahata
> +};
> +
> +static int kvm_x86_check_processor_compatibility(struct kvm_x86_init_ops
> *ops)
> +{
> + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = _data(smp_processor_id());
> +
> + WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> +
> + if (__cr4_reserved_bits(cpu_has, c) !=
> + __cr4_reserved_bits(cpu_has, _cpu_data))
> + return -EIO;
> +
> + return ops->check_processor_compatibility();
> +}
> +
> +static void kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat(void *data)
> +{
> + struct kvm_cpu_compat_check *c = data;
> +
> + *c->ret = kvm_x86_check_processor_compatibility(c->ops);
> +}
> +
> static int __kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
> {
> + struct kvm_cpu_compat_check c;
> u64 host_pat;
> - int r;
> + int r, cpu;
>
> if (kvm_x86_ops.hardware_enable) {
> pr_err("kvm: already loaded vendor module '%s'\n",
> kvm_x86_ops.name);
> @@ -9360,6 +9386,14 @@ static int __kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct
> kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
> if (r != 0)
> goto out_mmu_exit;
>
> + c.ret =
> + c.ops = ops;
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat, , 1);
> + if (r < 0)
Here it can be "c.ret < 0".
> + goto out_hardware_unsetup;
> + }
> +
> /*
>* Point of no return! DO NOT add error paths below this point unless
>* absolutely necessary, as most operations from this point forward
> @@ -9402,6 +9436,8 @@ static int __kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct
> kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
> kvm_init_msr_list();
> return 0;
>
> +out_hardware_unsetup:
> + ops->runtime_ops->hardware_unsetup();
> out_mmu_exit:
> kvm_mmu_vendor_module_exit();
> out_free_percpu:
> @@ -12037,16 +12073,7 @@ void kvm_arch_hardware_disable(void)
>
> int kvm_arch_check_processor_compat(void *opaque)
> {
> - struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = _data(smp_processor_id());
> - struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops = opaque;
> -
> - WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> -
> - if (__cr4_reserved_bits(cpu_has, c) !=
> - __cr4_reserved_bits(cpu_has, _cpu_data))
> - return -EIO;
> -
> - return ops->check_processor_compatibility();
> + return 0;
> }
>
> bool kvm_vcpu_is_reset_bsp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> --
> 2.38.1.584.g0f3c55d4c2-goog
>
--
Isaku Yamahata
___
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
Re: [PATCH v2 31/50] KVM: x86: Do CPU compatibility checks in x86 code
On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 23:09 +, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Move the CPU compatibility checks to pure x86 code, i.e. drop x86's use
> of the common kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat() arch hook. x86 is the only
^
kvm_arch_check_processor_compat()
> architecture that "needs" to do per-CPU compatibility checks, moving
> the logic to x86 will allow dropping the common code, and will also
> give x86 more control over when/how the compatibility checks are
> performed, e.g. TDX will need to enable hardware (do VMXON) in order to
> perform compatibility checks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson
Reviewed-by: Kai Huang
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 49 --
> 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> index 19e81a99c58f..d7ea1c1175c2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> @@ -5103,7 +5103,7 @@ static int __init svm_init(void)
>* Common KVM initialization _must_ come last, after this, /dev/kvm is
>* exposed to userspace!
>*/
> - r = kvm_init(_init_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
> + r = kvm_init(NULL, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
>__alignof__(struct vcpu_svm), THIS_MODULE);
> if (r)
> goto err_kvm_init;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index 654d81f781da..8deb1bd60c10 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -8592,7 +8592,7 @@ static int __init vmx_init(void)
>* Common KVM initialization _must_ come last, after this, /dev/kvm is
>* exposed to userspace!
>*/
> - r = kvm_init(_init_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_vmx),
> + r = kvm_init(NULL, sizeof(struct vcpu_vmx),
>__alignof__(struct vcpu_vmx), THIS_MODULE);
> if (r)
> goto err_kvm_init;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 66f16458aa97..3571bc968cf8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -9277,10 +9277,36 @@ static inline void kvm_ops_update(struct
> kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
> kvm_pmu_ops_update(ops->pmu_ops);
> }
>
> +struct kvm_cpu_compat_check {
> + struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops;
> + int *ret;
> +};
> +
> +static int kvm_x86_check_processor_compatibility(struct kvm_x86_init_ops
> *ops)
> +{
> + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = _data(smp_processor_id());
> +
> + WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> +
> + if (__cr4_reserved_bits(cpu_has, c) !=
> + __cr4_reserved_bits(cpu_has, _cpu_data))
> + return -EIO;
> +
> + return ops->check_processor_compatibility();
> +}
> +
> +static void kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat(void *data)
> +{
> + struct kvm_cpu_compat_check *c = data;
> +
> + *c->ret = kvm_x86_check_processor_compatibility(c->ops);
> +}
> +
> static int __kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
> {
> + struct kvm_cpu_compat_check c;
> u64 host_pat;
> - int r;
> + int r, cpu;
>
> if (kvm_x86_ops.hardware_enable) {
> pr_err("kvm: already loaded vendor module '%s'\n",
> kvm_x86_ops.name);
> @@ -9360,6 +9386,14 @@ static int __kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct
> kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
> if (r != 0)
> goto out_mmu_exit;
>
> + c.ret =
> + c.ops = ops;
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat, , 1);
> + if (r < 0)
> + goto out_hardware_unsetup;
> + }
> +
> /*
>* Point of no return! DO NOT add error paths below this point unless
>* absolutely necessary, as most operations from this point forward
> @@ -9402,6 +9436,8 @@ static int __kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct
> kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
> kvm_init_msr_list();
> return 0;
>
> +out_hardware_unsetup:
> + ops->runtime_ops->hardware_unsetup();
> out_mmu_exit:
> kvm_mmu_vendor_module_exit();
> out_free_percpu:
> @@ -12037,16 +12073,7 @@ void kvm_arch_hardware_disable(void)
>
> int kvm_arch_check_processor_compat(void *opaque)
> {
> - struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = _data(smp_processor_id());
> - struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops = opaque;
> -
> - WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> -
> - if (__cr4_reserved_bits(cpu_has, c) !=
> - __cr4_reserved_bits(cpu_has, _cpu_data))
> - return -EIO;
> -
> - return ops->check_processor_compatibility();
> + return 0;
> }
>
> bool kvm_vcpu_is_reset_bsp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> --
> 2.38.1.584.g0f3c55d4c2-goog
>
___
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
[PATCH v2 31/50] KVM: x86: Do CPU compatibility checks in x86 code
Move the CPU compatibility checks to pure x86 code, i.e. drop x86's use
of the common kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat() arch hook. x86 is the only
architecture that "needs" to do per-CPU compatibility checks, moving
the logic to x86 will allow dropping the common code, and will also
give x86 more control over when/how the compatibility checks are
performed, e.g. TDX will need to enable hardware (do VMXON) in order to
perform compatibility checks.
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson
---
arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 49 --
3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
index 19e81a99c58f..d7ea1c1175c2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
@@ -5103,7 +5103,7 @@ static int __init svm_init(void)
* Common KVM initialization _must_ come last, after this, /dev/kvm is
* exposed to userspace!
*/
- r = kvm_init(_init_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
+ r = kvm_init(NULL, sizeof(struct vcpu_svm),
__alignof__(struct vcpu_svm), THIS_MODULE);
if (r)
goto err_kvm_init;
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
index 654d81f781da..8deb1bd60c10 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
@@ -8592,7 +8592,7 @@ static int __init vmx_init(void)
* Common KVM initialization _must_ come last, after this, /dev/kvm is
* exposed to userspace!
*/
- r = kvm_init(_init_ops, sizeof(struct vcpu_vmx),
+ r = kvm_init(NULL, sizeof(struct vcpu_vmx),
__alignof__(struct vcpu_vmx), THIS_MODULE);
if (r)
goto err_kvm_init;
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 66f16458aa97..3571bc968cf8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -9277,10 +9277,36 @@ static inline void kvm_ops_update(struct
kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
kvm_pmu_ops_update(ops->pmu_ops);
}
+struct kvm_cpu_compat_check {
+ struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops;
+ int *ret;
+};
+
+static int kvm_x86_check_processor_compatibility(struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
+{
+ struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = _data(smp_processor_id());
+
+ WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled());
+
+ if (__cr4_reserved_bits(cpu_has, c) !=
+ __cr4_reserved_bits(cpu_has, _cpu_data))
+ return -EIO;
+
+ return ops->check_processor_compatibility();
+}
+
+static void kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat(void *data)
+{
+ struct kvm_cpu_compat_check *c = data;
+
+ *c->ret = kvm_x86_check_processor_compatibility(c->ops);
+}
+
static int __kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops)
{
+ struct kvm_cpu_compat_check c;
u64 host_pat;
- int r;
+ int r, cpu;
if (kvm_x86_ops.hardware_enable) {
pr_err("kvm: already loaded vendor module '%s'\n",
kvm_x86_ops.name);
@@ -9360,6 +9386,14 @@ static int __kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct kvm_x86_init_ops
*ops)
if (r != 0)
goto out_mmu_exit;
+ c.ret =
+ c.ops = ops;
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+ smp_call_function_single(cpu, kvm_x86_check_cpu_compat, , 1);
+ if (r < 0)
+ goto out_hardware_unsetup;
+ }
+
/*
* Point of no return! DO NOT add error paths below this point unless
* absolutely necessary, as most operations from this point forward
@@ -9402,6 +9436,8 @@ static int __kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct kvm_x86_init_ops
*ops)
kvm_init_msr_list();
return 0;
+out_hardware_unsetup:
+ ops->runtime_ops->hardware_unsetup();
out_mmu_exit:
kvm_mmu_vendor_module_exit();
out_free_percpu:
@@ -12037,16 +12073,7 @@ void kvm_arch_hardware_disable(void)
int kvm_arch_check_processor_compat(void *opaque)
{
- struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = _data(smp_processor_id());
- struct kvm_x86_init_ops *ops = opaque;
-
- WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled());
-
- if (__cr4_reserved_bits(cpu_has, c) !=
- __cr4_reserved_bits(cpu_has, _cpu_data))
- return -EIO;
-
- return ops->check_processor_compatibility();
+ return 0;
}
bool kvm_vcpu_is_reset_bsp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
--
2.38.1.584.g0f3c55d4c2-goog
___
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
