Re: [PATCH v9 4/6] KVM: x86: Introduce untag_addr() in kvm_x86_ops

[Sean Christopherson]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023, Binbin Wu wrote:
> On 6/28/2023 8:15 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023, Binbin Wu wrote:
> > Use the perfectly good helper added earlier in the series:
> > 
> > 		cr3_lam = kvm_get_active_lam_bits();
> Good suggestion. Thanks.
> 
> > 
> > That has the added bonus of avoiding a VMREAD of CR3 when LAM is disabled in CR4.
> Why? I don't get the point.

Sorry, typo on my end.  When LAM is disabled in guest CPUID, not CR4.

> > > +void vmx_untag_addr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t *gva, u32 flags)
> > Rather than modify the pointer, return the untagged address.  That's more flexible
> > as it allows using the result in if-statements and whatnot.  That might not ever
> > come into play, but there's no good reason to use an in/out param in a void
> > function.
> In earlier version, it did return the untagged address.
> In this version, I changed it as an in/out param to make the interface
> conditional and avoid to add a dummy one in SVM.
> Is it can be a reason?

Hmm, no.  You can achieve the same by doing:

	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = emul_to_vcpu(ctxt);

	if (!kvm_x86_ops.get_untagged_addr)
		return addr;

	return static_call(kvm_x86_get_untagged_addr)(vcpu, addr, flags);

> > gva_t vmx_get_untagged_addr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t gva,
> > 			    unsigned int flags)
> > {
> > 	unsigned long cr3_bits, cr4_bits;
> > 	int lam_bit;
> > 
> > 	if (flags & (X86EMUL_F_FETCH | X86EMUL_F_BRANCH_INVLPG | X86EMUL_F_IMPLICIT))
> Thanks for the suggestion. Overall, it looks good to me.
> 
> Suppose "X86EMUL_F_BRANCH_INVLPG "  should be two flags for branch and
> invlpg, right？

Yeah, typo again.  Should just be X86EMUL_F_INVLPG, because unlike LASS, LAM
ignores all FETCH types.

> And for LAM, X86EMUL_F_IMPLICIT will not be used because in the implicit
> access to memory management registers or descriptors,
> the linear base addresses still need to be canonical and no hooks will be
> added to untag the addresses in these pathes.
> So I probably will remove the check for X86EMUL_F_IMPLICIT here.

No, please keep it, e.g. so that changes in the emulator don't lead to breakage,
and to document that they are exempt.

If you want, you could do WARN_ON_ONCE() for the IMPLICIT case, but I don't know
that that's worthwhile, e.g. nothing will go wrong if KVM tries to untag an
implicit access, and deliberately avoiding the call make make it annoying to
consolidate code in the future.