From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: Add build-time assertion on usage of bit()
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:18:17 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191211191817.GJ5044@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eR93otezrDot23oODV1S6M9kUAF9oB5UD7+E765cHRXjw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:24:36AM -0800, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Sean Christopherson
> <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add build-time checks to ensure KVM isn't trying to do a reverse CPUID
> > lookup on Linux-defined feature bits, along with comments to explain
> > the gory details of X86_FEATUREs and bit().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Note, the premature newline in the first line of the second comment is
> > intentional to reduce churn in the next patch.
> >
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.h b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.h
> > index cab5e71f0f0f..4ee4175c66a7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.h
> > @@ -144,9 +144,28 @@ static inline bool is_pae_paging(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > return !is_long_mode(vcpu) && is_pae(vcpu) && is_paging(vcpu);
> > }
> >
> > -static inline u32 bit(int bitno)
> > +/*
> > + * Retrieve the bit mask from an X86_FEATURE_* definition. Features contain
> > + * the hardware defined bit number (stored in bits 4:0) and a software defined
> > + * "word" (stored in bits 31:5). The word is used to index into arrays of
> > + * bit masks that hold the per-cpu feature capabilities, e.g. this_cpu_has().
> > + */
> > +static __always_inline u32 bit(int feature)
> > {
> > - return 1 << (bitno & 31);
> > + /*
> > + * bit() is intended to be used only for hardware-defined
> > + * words, i.e. words whose bits directly correspond to a CPUID leaf.
> > + * Retrieving the bit mask from a Linux-defined word is nonsensical
> > + * as the bit number/mask is an arbitrary software-defined value and
> > + * can't be used by KVM to query/control guest capabilities.
> > + */
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON((feature >> 5) == CPUID_LNX_1);
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON((feature >> 5) == CPUID_LNX_2);
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON((feature >> 5) == CPUID_LNX_3);
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON((feature >> 5) == CPUID_LNX_4);
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON((feature >> 5) > CPUID_7_EDX);
>
> What is magical about CPUID_7_EDX?
It's currently the last cpufeatures word. My thought was to force this to
be updated in order to do reverse lookup on the next new word. I didn't
want to use NCAPINTS because that gets updated when a new word is added to
cpufeatures, i.e. wouldn't catch the case where the next new word is a
Linux-defined word, which is extremely unlikely but theoretically possible.
> > +
> > + return 1 << (feature & 31);
>
> Why not BIT(feature & 31)?
That's a very good question.
> > }
> >
> > static inline u8 vcpu_virt_addr_bits(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > --
> > 2.24.0
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-11 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-11 17:58 [PATCH 0/2] KVM: x86: X86_FEATURE bit() cleanup Sean Christopherson
2019-12-11 17:58 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: Add build-time assertion on usage of bit() Sean Christopherson
2019-12-11 18:24 ` Jim Mattson
2019-12-11 19:18 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2019-12-11 17:58 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Refactor and rename bit() to feature_bit() macro Sean Christopherson
2019-12-11 18:27 ` Jim Mattson
2019-12-14 3:35 ` [PATCH 0/2] KVM: x86: X86_FEATURE bit() cleanup Sean Christopherson
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=20191211191817.GJ5044@linux.intel.com \
--to=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
/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