Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Avoid KVM_SET_CPUID2 after KVM_RUN in vmx_pmu_msrs_test

[Vitaly Kuznetsov]

Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> > index 85127b3e3690..65e297875405 100644
>> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> > @@ -3424,7 +3424,7 @@ int kvm_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
>> >
>> >                 if (!msr_info->host_initiated)
>> >                         return 1;
>> > -               if (guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PDCM) && kvm_get_msr_feature(&msr_ent))
>> > +               if (kvm_get_msr_feature(&msr_ent))
>> >                         return 1;
>> >                 if (data & ~msr_ent.data)
>> >                         return 1;
>> 
>> This looks OK.
>> 
>> > @@ -3779,14 +3779,12 @@ int kvm_get_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
>> >                 msr_info->data = vcpu->arch.microcode_version;
>> >                 break;
>> >         case MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES:
>> > -               if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
>> > -                   !guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES))
>> > +               if (!msr_info->host_initiated)
>> >                         return 1;
>> >                 msr_info->data = vcpu->arch.arch_capabilities;
>> >                 break;
>> >         case MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES:
>> > -               if (!msr_info->host_initiated &&
>> > -                   !guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PDCM))
>> > +               if (!msr_info->host_initiated)
>> >                         return 1;
>> >                 msr_info->data = vcpu->arch.perf_capabilities;
>> >                 break;
>> >
>> 
>> Hm, this change will unconditionally forbid reading
>> MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES/MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES from the guest. Is
>> this what we want?
>
> No, I completely misread the code.  The kvm_set_msr_common() goof seems to be
> the only bug, and that would also explain the selftest's bad testcase.
>

Ok then, v2 is coming.

-- 
Vitaly