[Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 10/34] x86, x86/mm, x86/xen, olpc: Use __va() against just the physical address in cr3

[Tom Lendacky]

On 6/8/2017 5:01 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 08/06/2017 22:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 06/08/2017 05:02 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2017 3:51 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>> What may be needed is making sure X86_FEATURE_SME is not set for PV
>>>>>> guests.
>>>>> And that may be something that Xen will need to control through either
>>>>> CPUID or MSR support for the PV guests.
>>>>
>>>> Only on newer versions of Xen. On earlier versions (2-3 years old) leaf
>>>> 0x80000007 is passed to the guest unchanged. And so is MSR_K8_SYSCFG.
>>> The SME feature is in leaf 0x8000001f, is that leaf passed to the guest
>>> unchanged?
>> Oh, I misread the patch where X86_FEATURE_SME is defined. Then all
>> versions, including the current one, pass it unchanged.
>>
>> All that's needed is setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_SME) in
>> xen_init_capabilities().
> 
> AMD processors still don't support CPUID Faulting (or at least, I
> couldn't find any reference to it in the latest docs), so we cannot
> actually hide SME from a guest which goes looking at native CPUID.
> Furthermore, I'm not aware of any CPUID masking support covering that leaf.
> 
> However, if Linux is using the paravirtual cpuid hook, things are
> slightly better.
> 
> On Xen 4.9 and later, no guests will see the feature.  On earlier
> versions of Xen (before I fixed the logic), plain domUs will not see the
> feature, while dom0 will.
> 
> For safely, I'd recommend unilaterally clobbering the feature as Boris
> suggested.  There is no way SME will be supportable on a per-PV guest

That may be too late. Early boot support in head_64.S will make calls to
check for the feature (through CPUID and MSR), set the sme_me_mask and
encrypt the kernel in place. Is there another way to approach this?

> basis, although (as far as I am aware) Xen as a whole would be able to
> encompass itself and all of its PV guests inside one single SME instance.

Yes, that is correct.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> ~Andrew
>