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 07:39:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190614143912.GB12191@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190614142139.GH2586@zn.tnic>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:21:39PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 07:14:24AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No no, reverse_cpuid is hardcoding our feature leafs. This is wrong as
> we want to be able to change those. And reverse_cpuid[] should be able
> to handle that.
>
> KVM is complaining because he removed one leaf. He adds it later in
> patch 3 as a Linux-defined leaf.
Yes, because removing that leaf breaks 'enum cpuid_leafs'. Patch 3/3
"fixes" it by re-inserting a leaf, which causes 'enum cpuid_leafs' to
align with the CPU features.
For example, this assertion also fails:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
index 5b0e9d869ce5..c273b99702d0 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
@@ -823,6 +823,7 @@ void get_cpu_cap(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
c->x86_capability[CPUID_7_0_EBX] = ebx;
c->x86_capability[CPUID_7_ECX] = ecx;
c->x86_capability[CPUID_7_EDX] = edx;
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(CPUID_7_EDX != X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES/32);
}
/* Extended state features: level 0x0000000d */
In function ‘x86_feature_cpuid’,
inlined from ‘guest_cpuid_get_register’ at arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h:71:25,
inlined from ‘guest_cpuid_has’ at arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h:100:6,
inlined from ‘kvm_get_msr_common’ at arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:2824:8:
include/linux/compiler.h:345:38: error: call to ‘__compiletime_assert_62’ declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: x86_leaf >= ARRAY_SIZE(reverse_cpuid)
_compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __LINE__)
But this assertion passes because its word is 10, i.e. below the 11/12
words that are getting mucked with.
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
index 5b0e9d869ce5..aada9d2fa4df 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
@@ -830,6 +830,7 @@ void get_cpu_cap(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
cpuid_count(0x0000000d, 1, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
c->x86_capability[CPUID_D_1_EAX] = eax;
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(CPUID_D_1_EAX != X86_FEATURE_XSAVES/32);
}
/* AMD-defined flags: level 0x80000001 */
> All that doesn't matter for KVM - if KVM wants to do reverse lookup,
> then it should handle Linux-defined leafs just fine.
KVM can't handle Linux-defined leafs without extra tricks, which is why
I removed get_scattered_cpuid_leaf() or whatever it was called.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-14 14:39 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
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 [this message]
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=20190614143912.GB12191@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