From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: "Fenghua Yu" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "H Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"Ravi V Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>,
"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] x86/cpufeatures: Combine word 11 and 12 into new scattered features word 11
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 07:14:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190614141424.GA12191@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190614134123.GF2586@zn.tnic>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:41:23PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> + Radim and Paolo. See upthread for context.
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 06:17:02AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > > Alternatively - and what I think is the better solution - would be to
> > > remove those BUILD_BUG_ONs in x86_feature_cpuid and filter out the
> > > Linux-defined leafs dynamically. This way the array won't have holes in
> > > it.
> >
> > Maybe adding a dummy slot in cpuid_leafs in patch 0002 to avoid the
> > compilation errors?
>
> Maybe you didn't read what you're replying to: "This way the array
> won't have holes in it". Ontop of yours:
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h
> index d78a61408243..03d6f3f7b27c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ static const struct cpuid_reg reverse_cpuid[] = {
> [CPUID_8000_0001_ECX] = {0x80000001, 0, CPUID_ECX},
> [CPUID_7_0_EBX] = { 7, 0, CPUID_EBX},
> [CPUID_D_1_EAX] = { 0xd, 1, CPUID_EAX},
> + [CPUID_7_1_EAX] = { 7, 1, CPUID_EAX},
> [CPUID_8000_0008_EBX] = {0x80000008, 0, CPUID_EBX},
> [CPUID_6_EAX] = { 6, 0, CPUID_EAX},
> [CPUID_8000_000A_EDX] = {0x8000000a, 0, CPUID_EDX},
> @@ -59,8 +60,9 @@ static __always_inline struct cpuid_reg x86_feature_cpuid(unsigned x86_feature)
> {
> unsigned x86_leaf = x86_feature / 32;
>
> - BUILD_BUG_ON(x86_leaf >= ARRAY_SIZE(reverse_cpuid));
> - BUILD_BUG_ON(reverse_cpuid[x86_leaf].function == 0);
> + if (x86_leaf == CPUID_LNX_1 ||
> + x86_leaf == CPUID_LNX_4)
> + return NULL;
>
> return reverse_cpuid[x86_leaf];
> }
>
> That's what I mean with filter out dynamically.
This is wrong. KVM isn't complaining about shuffling the order of feature
words, it's complaining that code is trying to do a reverse CPUID lookup
to a feature that isn't in the reverse_cpuid table. Filtering out
checks dynamically is just hiding bugs.
>In function ‘x86_feature_cpuid’,
> inlined from ‘guest_cpuid_get_register’ at arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h:71:33,
> inlined from ‘guest_cpuid_has’ at arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h:100:8,
> inlined from ‘kvm_get_msr_common’ at arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:2804:8:
This corresponds to "guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES)",
i.e. KVM is trying to query X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES and is yelling
that there is no reverse_cpuid entry for CPUID_7_EDX.
The problem is that 'enum cpuid_leafs' no longer matches up with the
word numbers defined in cpufeatures.h, e.g. CPUID_7_EDX == 17 or so, but
the entries in cpufeatures.h defined CPUID_7_EDX flags using word 18.
This patch also needs to modify NCAPINTS.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-14 14:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-13 20:51 [RFC PATCH 0/3] x86/cpufeatures: Re-arrange a few features and enumerate AVX512 BFLOAT16 intructions Fenghua Yu
2019-06-13 20:51 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] x86/resctrl: Get max rmid and occupancy scale directly from CPUID instead of cpuinfo_x86 Fenghua Yu
2019-06-14 11:16 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-14 16:55 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-14 17:47 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-14 17:49 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-13 20:51 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] x86/cpufeatures: Combine word 11 and 12 into new scattered features word 11 Fenghua Yu
2019-06-14 11:44 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-14 12:27 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-14 13:17 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-14 13:41 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-14 13:51 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-14 14:10 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-14 14:14 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2019-06-14 14:15 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-14 14:26 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-14 14:25 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-14 15:02 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-14 18:44 ` Fenghua Yu
2019-06-14 14:21 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-14 14:39 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-14 14:57 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-14 15:24 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-14 16:10 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-14 16:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-13 20:51 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86/cpufeatures: Enumerate new AVX512 BFLOAT16 instructions Fenghua Yu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190614141424.GA12191@linux.intel.com \
--to=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=ravi.v.shankar@intel.com \
--cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox