Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] x86/bhi: Make clear_bhb_loop() effective on newer CPUs

[Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 01:00:15PM -0800, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:19 PM Pawan Gupta
> <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > As a mitigation for BHI, clear_bhb_loop() executes branches that overwrites
> > the Branch History Buffer (BHB). On Alder Lake and newer parts this
> > sequence is not sufficient because it doesn't clear enough entries. This
> > was not an issue because these CPUs have a hardware control (BHI_DIS_S)
> > that mitigates BHI in kernel.
> >
> > BHI variant of VMSCAPE requires isolating branch history between guests and
> > userspace. Note that there is no equivalent hardware control for userspace.
> > To effectively isolate branch history on newer CPUs, clear_bhb_loop()
> > should execute sufficient number of branches to clear a larger BHB.
> >
> > Dynamically set the loop count of clear_bhb_loop() such that it is
> > effective on newer CPUs too. Use the hardware control enumeration
> > X86_FEATURE_BHI_CTRL to select the appropriate loop count.
> 
> I didn't speak up earlier, because I have always considered the change
> in MAXPHYADDR from ICX to SPR a hard barrier for virtual machines
> masquerading as a different platform. Sadly, I am now losing that
> battle. :(
> 
> If a heterogeneous migration pool includes hosts with and without
> BHI_CTRL, then BHI_CTRL cannot be advertised to a guest, because it is
> not possible to emulate BHI_DIS_S on a host that doesn't have it.
> Hence, one cannot derive the size of the BHB from the existence of
> this feature bit.

As far as VMSCAPE mitigation is concerned, mitigation is done by the host
so enumeration of BHI_CTRL is not a problem. The issue that you are
refering to exists with or without this patch.

I suppose your point is in the context of Native BHI mitigation for the
guests.

> I think we need an explicit CPUID bit that a hypervisor can set to
> indicate that the underlying hardware might be SPR or later.

Something similar was attempted via virtual-MSRs in the below series:

[RFC PATCH v3 09/10] KVM: VMX: Advertise MITI_CTRL_BHB_CLEAR_SEQ_S_SUPPORT
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240410143446.797262-10-chao.gao@intel.com/

Do you think a rework of this approach would help?