Re: [PATCH v5 02/16] x86/hyperv: detect if Linux is the root partition

Wei Liu
2021-01-26T15:17:08Z

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:31:31AM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 4:01 AM
> >
> > For now we can use the privilege flag to check. Stash the value to be
> > used later.
> >
> > Put in a bunch of defines for future use when we want to have more
> > fine-grained detection.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > v3: move hv_root_partition to mshyperv.c
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h | 2 ++
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h
> > index 6bf42aed387e..204010350604 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h
> > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> > #define HYPERV_CPUID_FEATURES 0x40000003
> > #define HYPERV_CPUID_ENLIGHTMENT_INFO 0x40000004
> > #define HYPERV_CPUID_IMPLEMENT_LIMITS 0x40000005
> > +#define HYPERV_CPUID_CPU_MANAGEMENT_FEATURES 0x40000007
> > #define HYPERV_CPUID_NESTED_FEATURES 0x4000000A
> >
> > #define HYPERV_CPUID_VIRT_STACK_INTERFACE 0x40000081
> > @@ -110,6 +111,15 @@
> > /* Recommend using enlightened VMCS */
> > #define HV_X64_ENLIGHTENED_VMCS_RECOMMENDED BIT(14)
> >
> > +/*
> > + * CPU management features identification.
> > + * These are HYPERV_CPUID_CPU_MANAGEMENT_FEATURES.EAX bits.
> > + */
> > +#define HV_X64_START_LOGICAL_PROCESSOR BIT(0)
> > +#define HV_X64_CREATE_ROOT_VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR BIT(1)
> > +#define HV_X64_PERFORMANCE_COUNTER_SYNC BIT(2)
> > +#define HV_X64_RESERVED_IDENTITY_BIT BIT(31)
> > +
>
> I wonder if these bit definitions should go in the asm-generic part of
> hyperv-tlfs.h instead of the X64 specific part. They look very architecture
> neutral (in which case the X64 should be dropped from the name
> as well). Of course, they can be moved later when/if we get to that point
> and have a firmer understanding of what is and isn't arch neutral.

Yes. This is the approach I'm taking here. They can be easily moved in
the future if there is a need.

>
> > /*
> > * Virtual processor will never share a physical core with another virtual
> > * processor, except for virtual processors that are reported as sibling SMT
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h
> > index ffc289992d1b..ac2b0d110f03 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h
> > @@ -237,6 +237,8 @@ int hyperv_fill_flush_guest_mapping_list(
> > struct hv_guest_mapping_flush_list *flush,
> > u64 start_gfn, u64 end_gfn);
> >
> > +extern bool hv_root_partition;
> > +
> > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > void hv_apic_init(void);
> > void __init hv_init_spinlocks(void);
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> > index f628e3dc150f..c376d191a260 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c
> > @@ -32,6 +32,10 @@
> > #include <asm/nmi.h>
> > #include <clocksource/hyperv_timer.h>
> >
> > +/* Is Linux running as the root partition? */
> > +bool hv_root_partition;
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hv_root_partition);
> > +
> > struct ms_hyperv_info ms_hyperv;
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ms_hyperv);
> >
> > @@ -237,6 +241,22 @@ static void __init ms_hyperv_init_platform(void)
> > pr_debug("Hyper-V: max %u virtual processors, %u logical processors\n",
> > ms_hyperv.max_vp_index, ms_hyperv.max_lp_index);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Check CPU management privilege.
> > + *
> > + * To mirror what Windows does we should extract CPU management
> > + * features and use the ReservedIdentityBit to detect if Linux is the
> > + * root partition. But that requires negotiating CPU management
> > + * interface (a process to be finalized).
> > + *
> > + * For now, use the privilege flag as the indicator for running as
> > + * root.
> > + */
> > + if (cpuid_ebx(HYPERV_CPUID_FEATURES) & HV_CPU_MANAGEMENT) {
>
> Should the EBX value be captured in the ms_hyperv structure with the
> other similar values, and then used from there?
>

There is only one usage of this in this whole series so I didn't bother
capturing. I would also like to clean up ms_hyperv_info's fields a bit.

Given there are quite some patches pending which change ms_hyperv_info
struct, I would like to avoid creating more conflicts than necessary.

My plan is to implement my idea from the thread "Field names inside
ms_hyperv_info" once all patches that touch ms_hyperv_info are merged.

Wei.