Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] KVM: x86: Use MTRR macros to define possible MTRR MSR ranges

["Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>]

On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 16:33 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Use the MTRR macros to identify the ranges of possible MTRR MSRs instead
> of bounding the ranges with a mismash of open coded values and unrelated
				^
				mishmash?

> MSR indices.  Carving out the gap for the machine check MSRs in particular
> is confusing, as it's easy to incorrectly think the case statement handles
> MCE MSRs instead of skipping them.
> 
> Drop the range-based funneling of MSRs between the end of the MCE MSRs
> and MTRR_DEF_TYPE, i.e. 0x2A0-0x2FF, and instead handle MTTR_DEF_TYPE as
> the one-off case that it is.
> 
> Extract PAT (0x277) as well in anticipation of dropping PAT "handling"
> from the MTRR code.
> 
> Keep the range-based handling for the variable+fixed MTRRs even though
> capturing unknown MSRs 0x214-0x24F is arguably "wrong".  There is a gap in
> the fixed MTRRs, 0x260-0x267, i.e. the MTRR code needs to filter out
> unknown MSRs anyways, and using a single range generates marginally better
> code for the big switch statement.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>

Reviewed-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>

One Nit below ...

> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/mtrr.c |  7 ++++---
>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c  | 10 ++++++----
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mtrr.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mtrr.c
> index 59851dbebfea..dc213b940141 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mtrr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mtrr.c
> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static bool is_mtrr_base_msr(unsigned int msr)
>  static struct kvm_mtrr_range *var_mtrr_msr_to_range(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  						    unsigned int msr)
>  {
> -	int index = (msr - 0x200) / 2;
> +	int index = (msr - MTRRphysBase_MSR(0)) / 2;
>  
>  	return &vcpu->arch.mtrr_state.var_ranges[index];
>  }
> @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ static struct kvm_mtrr_range *var_mtrr_msr_to_range(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  static bool msr_mtrr_valid(unsigned msr)
>  {
>  	switch (msr) {
> -	case 0x200 ... 0x200 + 2 * KVM_NR_VAR_MTRR - 1:
> +	case MTRRphysBase_MSR(0) ... MTRRphysMask_MSR(KVM_NR_VAR_MTRR - 1):
>  	case MSR_MTRRfix64K_00000:
>  	case MSR_MTRRfix16K_80000:
>  	case MSR_MTRRfix16K_A0000:
> @@ -88,7 +88,8 @@ bool kvm_mtrr_valid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, u64 data)
>  	}
>  
>  	/* variable MTRRs */
> -	WARN_ON(!(msr >= 0x200 && msr < 0x200 + 2 * KVM_NR_VAR_MTRR));
> +	WARN_ON(!(msr >= MTRRphysBase_MSR(0) &&
> +		  msr <= MTRRphysMask_MSR(KVM_NR_VAR_MTRR - 1)));
>  
>  	mask = kvm_vcpu_reserved_gpa_bits_raw(vcpu);
>  	if ((msr & 1) == 0) {
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index e7f78fe79b32..8b356c9d8a81 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -3700,8 +3700,9 @@ int kvm_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
>  			return 1;
>  		}
>  		break;
> -	case 0x200 ... MSR_IA32_MC0_CTL2 - 1:
> -	case MSR_IA32_MCx_CTL2(KVM_MAX_MCE_BANKS) ... 0x2ff:
> +	case MSR_IA32_CR_PAT:
> +	case MTRRphysBase_MSR(0) ... MSR_MTRRfix4K_F8000:
> +	case MSR_MTRRdefType:
>  		return kvm_mtrr_set_msr(vcpu, msr, data);
>  	case MSR_IA32_APICBASE:
>  		return kvm_set_apic_base(vcpu, msr_info);
> @@ -4108,9 +4109,10 @@ int kvm_get_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
>  		msr_info->data = kvm_scale_tsc(rdtsc(), ratio) + offset;
>  		break;
>  	}
> +	case MSR_IA32_CR_PAT:
>  	case MSR_MTRRcap:

... Should we put MSR_IA32_CR_PAT after MSR_MTRRcap so it can be symmetric to
kvm_set_msr_common()?

Looks there's no reason to put it before MSR_MTRRcap.

> -	case 0x200 ... MSR_IA32_MC0_CTL2 - 1:
> -	case MSR_IA32_MCx_CTL2(KVM_MAX_MCE_BANKS) ... 0x2ff:
> +	case MTRRphysBase_MSR(0) ... MSR_MTRRfix4K_F8000:
> +	case MSR_MTRRdefType:
>  		return kvm_mtrr_get_msr(vcpu, msr_info->index, &msr_info->data);
>  	case 0xcd: /* fsb frequency */
>  		msr_info->data = 3;
> -- 
> 2.40.1.606.ga4b1b128d6-goog
>