Re: [PATCH] KVM: TDX: Set SIGNIFCANT_INDEX flag for supported CPUIDs

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2026, Binbin Wu wrote:
> On 2/25/2026 5:29 AM, Changyuan Lyu wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > -----------------------
> > 
> >>From 18b967b718911c09872c3717d8ab083fa59c4a70 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Changyuan Lyu <changyuanl@google.com>
> > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 09:55:28 -0800
> > Subject: [PATCH] KVM: TDX: Set SIGNIFCANT_INDEX flag for supported CPUIDs
> > 
> > Set the KVM_CPUID_FLAG_SIGNIFCANT_INDEX flag in the kvm_cpuid_entry2
> > structures returned by KVM_TDX_CAPABILITIES if the CPUID is indexed.
> > This ensures consistency with the CPUID entries returned by
> > KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Changyuan Lyu <changyuanl@google.com>
> 
> 
> Hi Sean,
> 
> When I was preparing the v5 of the TDX CPUID patch series, the internal sashiko
> reported a issue:
>   > @@ -2359,6 +2359,15 @@ static int setup_tdparams_cpuids(struct kvm_cpuid2 *cpuid,
>   >  		if (!entry)
>   >  			continue;
>   >  
>   > +		/*
>   > +		 * Reject entries whose index doesn't match the expected one.
>   > +		 * This catches userspace passing a CPUID entry with the
>   > +		 * KVM_CPUID_FLAG_SIGNIFCANT_INDEX flag cleared when the index
>   > +		 * is significant.
>   > +		 */
>   > +		if (entry->index != tmp.index)
>   > +			return -EINVAL;
>   
>   [Severity: Medium]
>   Does this unconditional check inadvertently break userspace VMMs that provide
>   valid CPUID entries but leave the index field uninitialized for
>   non-significant leaves?
>   
>   Since kvm_find_cpuid_entry2() ignores the index field when
>   KVM_CPUID_FLAG_SIGNIFCANT_INDEX is cleared, VMMs are not architecturally
>   required to zero the index for non-significant leaves. This check forces
>   the index to be exactly 0 (since tmp.index is normalized to 0) even for
>   leaves that do not have architecturally significant subleaves.
> 
> 
> I think the issue is valid,

Yeah, requiring the index to be a specific value without SIGNIFCANT_INDEX set
could break usrspace.

> so it needs to know whether the entry is a subleaf or not. I think it's more

By "it", I assume you mean userspace?

> reliable to do it via the information reported by the TDX module. i.e. my
> patch set will rely on this patch to set KVM_CPUID_FLAG_SIGNIFCANT_INDEX for
> entries that are indexed.
> 
> Will you apply this patch?
> Or I can include this patch in my patch set. Also, 0x23 is still missing in
> cpuid_function_is_indexed(), I can add a patch to add 0x23 as well.
>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> > index 2d7a4d52ccfb4..1c039eab2f3d8 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
> > @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ static void td_init_cpuid_entry2(struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry, unsigned char i
> > 
> >  	entry->function = (u32)td_conf->cpuid_config_leaves[idx];
> >  	entry->index = td_conf->cpuid_config_leaves[idx] >> 32;
> > +	entry->flags = 0;
> >  	entry->eax = (u32)td_conf->cpuid_config_values[idx][0];
> >  	entry->ebx = td_conf->cpuid_config_values[idx][0] >> 32;
> >  	entry->ecx = (u32)td_conf->cpuid_config_values[idx][1];
> > @@ -174,6 +175,9 @@ static void td_init_cpuid_entry2(struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry, unsigned char i
> > 
> >  	if (entry->index == KVM_TDX_CPUID_NO_SUBLEAF)
> >  		entry->index = 0;
> > +	else
> > +		entry->flags |= KVM_CPUID_FLAG_SIGNIFCANT_INDEX;

Hrm, I'm getting deja vu.  Oh, this is an old thread.  *sigh*  I was expecting
a new patch/thread, but it got "posted" inline.

I'll send a small v2.