On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:22 PM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 06.02.2024 02:20, George Dunlap wrote:
> > For now, just disable the functionality entirely until we can
> > implement it properly:
> >
> > - Don't set TSCRATEMSR in the host CPUID policy
>
> This goes too far: This way you would (in principle) also affect guests
> with nesting disabled. According to the earlier parts of the description
> there's also no issue with it in that case. What you want to make sure
> it that in the HVM policy the bit isn't set.
>
> While presently resolving to cpu_has_svm_feature(), I think
> cpu_has_tsc_ratio really ought to resolve to the host policy field.
> Of course then requiring the host policy to reflect reality rather than
> having what is "always emulated". IOW ...
>
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu-policy.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu-policy.c
> > @@ -407,8 +407,7 @@ static void __init calculate_host_policy(void)
> > (1u << SVM_FEATURE_PAUSEFILTER) |
> > (1u << SVM_FEATURE_DECODEASSISTS));
> > /* Enable features which are always emulated. */
> > - p->extd.raw[0xa].d |= ((1u << SVM_FEATURE_VMCBCLEAN) |
> > - (1u << SVM_FEATURE_TSCRATEMSR));
> > + p->extd.raw[0xa].d |= (1u << SVM_FEATURE_VMCBCLEAN);
>
> ... this likely wants replacing altogether by not overriding what we
> found in hardware, which would apparently mean moving the two bit
> masks to the earlier "clamping" expression.
>
> But then of course Andrew may know of reasons why all of this is done
> in calculate_host_policy() in the first place, rather than in HVM
> policy calculation.
It sounds like maybe you're confusing host_policy with
x86_capabilities? From what I can tell:
* the "basic" cpu_has_X macros resolve to boot_cpu_has(), which
resolves to cpu_has(&boot_cpu_data, ...), which is completely
independent of the cpu-policy.c:host_cpu_policy
* cpu-policy.c:host_cpu_policy only affects what is advertised to
guests, via {pv,hvm}_cpu_policy and featureset bits. Most notably a
quick skim doesn't show any mechanism by which host_cpu_policy could
affect what features Xen itself decides to use.
Not sure exactly why the nested virt stuff is done at the
host_cpu_policy level rather than the hvm_cpu_policy level, but since
that's where it is, that's where we need to change it.
FWIW, as I said in response to your comment on 2/6, it would be nicer
if we moved svm_feature_flags into the "capabilities" section; but
that's a different set of work.
-George
-George
