lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1] kvm: x86: Revise guest_fpu xcomp_bv field
From
Date


On 2/9/2021 1:24 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2021, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 2/8/21 8:16 AM, Jing Liu wrote:
>>> -#define XSTATE_COMPACTION_ENABLED (1ULL << 63)
>>> -
>>> static void fill_xsave(u8 *dest, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>> {
>>> struct xregs_state *xsave = &vcpu->arch.guest_fpu->state.xsave;
>>> @@ -4494,7 +4492,8 @@ static void load_xsave(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u8 *src)
>>> /* Set XSTATE_BV and possibly XCOMP_BV. */
>>> xsave->header.xfeatures = xstate_bv;
>>> if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVES))
>>> - xsave->header.xcomp_bv = host_xcr0 | XSTATE_COMPACTION_ENABLED;
>>> + xsave->header.xcomp_bv = XCOMP_BV_COMPACTED_FORMAT |
>>> + xfeatures_mask_all;
> This is wrong, xfeatures_mask_all also tracks supervisor states.
When looking at SDM Vol2 XSAVES instruction Operation part, it says as
follows,

RFBM ← (XCR0 OR IA32_XSS) AND EDX:EAX;
COMPMASK ← RFBM OR 80000000_00000000H;
...

XCOMP_BV field in XSAVE header ← COMPMASK;


So it seems xcomp_bv also tracks supervisor states?

BRs,
Jing
>
>> Are 'host_xcr0' and 'xfeatures_mask_all' really interchangeable? If so,
>> shouldn't we just remove 'host_xcr0' everywhere?
> I think so? But use xfeatures_mask_user().
>
> In theory, host_xss can also be replaced with the _supervisor() and _dynamic()
> variants. That code needs a good hard look at the _dynamic() features, which is
> currently just architectural LBRs. E.g. I wouldn't be surprised if KVM currently
> fails to save/restore arch LBRs due to the bit not being set in host_xss.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-22 04:23    [W:0.068 / U:2.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site