Re: [PATCH 6/9] KVM: x86: Update guest cpu_caps at runtime for dynamic CPUID-based features

[Robert Hoo]

On 11/15/2023 11:09 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
...
> > > No, because then every caller would need extra code to pass
> > > vcpu->cpu_caps,
> >
> > Emm, I don't understand this. I tried to modified and compiled, all need to
> > do is simply substitute "vcpu" with "vcpu->arch.cpu_caps" in calling. (at
> > the end is my diff based on this patch set)
>
> Yes, and I'm saying that
>
> 	guest_cpu_cap_restrict(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PAUSEFILTER);
> 	guest_cpu_cap_restrict(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PFTHRESHOLD);
> 	guest_cpu_cap_restrict(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_VGIF);
> 	guest_cpu_cap_restrict(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_VNMI);
>
> is harder to read and write than this
>
> 	guest_cpu_cap_restrict(vcpu->arch.cpu_caps, X86_FEATURE_PAUSEFILTER);
> 	guest_cpu_cap_restrict(vcpu->arch.cpu_caps, X86_FEATURE_PFTHRESHOLD);
> 	guest_cpu_cap_restrict(vcpu->arch.cpu_caps, X86_FEATURE_VGIF);
> 	guest_cpu_cap_restrict(vcpu->arch.cpu_caps, X86_FEATURE_VNMI);
>
> a one-time search-replace is easy, but the extra boilerplate has a non-zero cost
> for every future developer/reader.

Hmm, I think this is trivial. And can be solved/eased by other means, e.g. 
Macro?. Rather than in the sacrifice of letting function's inside (easily) 
access those info it shouldn't.
> > > and passing 'u32 *' provides less type safety than 'struct kvm_vcpu *'.
> > > That tradeoff isn't worth making this one path slightly easier to read.
> >
> > My point is also from vulnerability, long term, since as a principle, we'd
> > better pass in param/info to a function of its necessity.
>
> Attempting to apply the principle of least privilege to low level C helpers is
> nonsensical.  E.g. the helper can trivially get at the owning vcpu via container_of()
> (well, if not for typeof assertions not playing nice with arrays, but open coding
> container_of() is also trivial and illustrates the point).
>
> 	struct kvm_vcpu_arch *arch = (void *)caps -  offsetof(struct kvm_vcpu_arch, cpu_caps);
> 	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = container_of(arch, struct kvm_vcpu, arch);
>
> 	if (!kvm_cpu_cap_has(x86_feature))
> 		guest_cpu_cap_clear(vcpu, x86_feature);
>
> And the intent behind that principle is to improve security/robustness; what I'm
> saying is that passing in a 'u32 *" makes the overall implementation _less_ robust,
> as it opens up the possibilities of passing in an unsafe/incorrect pointer.  E.g.
> a well-intentioned, not _that_ obviously broken example is:
>
> 	guest_cpu_cap_restrict(&vcpu->arch.cpu_caps[CPUID_1_ECX], X86_FEATURE_XSAVE);
>
> > e.g. cpuid_entry2_find().
>
> The main reason cpuid_entry2_find() exists is because KVM checks the incoming
> array provided by KVM_SET_CPUID2, which is also the reason why
> __kvm_update_cpuid_runtime() takes an @entries array instead of just @vcpu.

Thanks for detailed explanation, I understand your points deeper, though I would 
still prefer to honoring the principle if it was me to write the function. The 
concerns above can/should be addressed by other means. (If some really cannot be 
solved in C, i.e. more stringent type check, it's C to blame ;) but it on the 
other side offers those flexibility that other languages cannot, doesn't it?)
Another pros of the principle is that, it's also a fence, prevent (at least 
raise the bar) people in the future from doing something that shouldn't be in 
the function, e.g.  for his convenience to quickly fix a bug etc.

Anyway, it's a dilemma, and I said it's a less important point for this great 
progress of vCPUID's implementation, thanks.

Reviewed-by: Robert Hoo <robert.hoo.linux@xxxxxxxxx>