lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Give a hint when Win2016 might fail to boot due to XSAVES erratum
From
On 26.01.2024 19:36, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:18 PM Maciej S. Szmigiero
> <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name> wrote:
>> +static void kvm_hv_xsaves_xsavec_maybe_warn_unlocked(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> Calling this function "unlocked" is confusing (others would say
> "locked" is confusing instead). The double-underscore convention is
> more common.
>
>> +{
>> + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
>> + struct kvm_hv *hv = to_kvm_hv(kvm);
>> +
>> + if (hv->xsaves_xsavec_warned)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (!vcpu->arch.hyperv_enabled)
>> + return;
>
> I think these two should be in kvm_hv_xsaves_xsavec_maybe_warn(),
> though the former needs to be checked again under the lock.
>
>> + if ((hv->hv_guest_os_id & KVM_HV_WIN2016_GUEST_ID_MASK) !=
>> + KVM_HV_WIN2016_GUEST_ID)
>> + return;
>
> At this point there is no need to return. You can set
> xsaves_xsavec_warned and save the checks in the future.
>
>> + /* UP configurations aren't affected */
>> + if (atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus) < 2)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVES) ||
>> + !guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_XSAVEC))
>> + return;
>
> boot_cpu_has can also be done first to cull the whole check.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> index 27e23714e960..db0a2c40d749 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> @@ -1782,6 +1782,10 @@ static int set_efer
>> if ((efer ^ old_efer) & KVM_MMU_EFER_ROLE_BITS)
>> kvm_mmu_reset_context(vcpu);
>>
>> + if (guest_cpuid_is_amd_or_hygon(vcpu) &&
>> + efer & EFER_SVME)
>> + kvm_hv_xsaves_xsavec_maybe_warn(vcpu);
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> Checking guest_cpuid_is_amd_or_hygon() is relatively expensive, it
> should be done after "efer & EFER_SVME" but really the bug can happen
> just as well on Intel as far as I understand? It's just less likely
> due to the AMD erratum.

Yes, I've checked this guest on an Intel host and it also fails to
boot in !XSAVES && XSAVEC configuration.

Only on Intel it's purely a theoretical problem as AFAIK there's
no corresponding Intel errata that disables just XSAVES.

>
> I'll send a v2.
>
> Paolo
>

Thanks,
Maciej


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 14:35    [W:0.035 / U:1.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site