lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC 2/7] KVM: VMX: Expose IA32_PKRS MSR
From
Date


On 1/27/2021 2:01 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/08/20 10:48, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
>> +{
>> +    struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
>> +    unsigned long *msr_bitmap = vmx->vmcs01.msr_bitmap;
>> +    bool pks_supported = guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PKS);
>> +
>> +    /*
>> +     * set intercept for PKRS when the guest doesn't support pks
>> +     */
>> +    vmx_set_intercept_for_msr(msr_bitmap, MSR_IA32_PKRS, MSR_TYPE_RW,
>> !pks_supported);
>> +
>> +    if (pks_supported) {
>> +        vm_entry_controls_setbit(vmx, VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_PKRS);
>> +        vm_exit_controls_setbit(vmx, VM_EXIT_LOAD_IA32_PKRS);
>> +    } else {
>> +        vm_entry_controls_clearbit(vmx, VM_ENTRY_LOAD_IA32_PKRS);
>> +        vm_exit_controls_clearbit(vmx, VM_EXIT_LOAD_IA32_PKRS);
>> +    }
>
> Is the guest expected to do a lot of reads/writes to the MSR (e.g. at
> every context switch)?
>

In current design for PKS, the PMEM stray write protection is the only
implemented use case, and PKRS is only temporarily changed during
specific code paths. Thus reads/writes to MSR is not so frequent, I think.

> Even if this is the case, the MSR intercepts and the entry/exit controls
> should only be done if CR4.PKS=1.  If the guest does not use PKS, KVM
> should behave as if these patches did not exist.
>


I pass through the PKRS and enable the entry/exit controls when PKS is
supported, and just want to narrow down the window of MSR switch during
the VMX transition. But yeah, I should also consider the enabling status
of guest PKS according to CR4.PKS, will fix it in next version.

> Paolo
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-01-27 09:10    [W:1.364 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site