Thread (183 messages) 183 messages, 11 authors, 2022-01-29

Re: [PATCH v8 22/40] x86/sev: move MSR-based VMGEXITs for CPUID to helper

From: Michael Roth <hidden>
Date: 2022-01-06 20:21:54
Also in: kvm, linux-efi, linux-mm, lkml, platform-driver-x86

On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 12:38:37PM -0600, Venu Busireddy wrote:
On 2021-12-10 09:43:14 -0600, Brijesh Singh wrote:
quoted
From: Michael Roth <redacted>

This code will also be used later for SEV-SNP-validated CPUID code in
some cases, so move it to a common helper.

Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <redacted>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c b/arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c
index 3aaef1a18ffe..d89481b31022 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c
@@ -194,6 +194,58 @@ enum es_result sev_es_ghcb_hv_call(struct ghcb *ghcb, bool set_ghcb_msr,
 	return verify_exception_info(ghcb, ctxt);
 }
 
+static int sev_cpuid_hv(u32 func, u32 subfunc, u32 *eax, u32 *ebx,
+			u32 *ecx, u32 *edx)
+{
+	u64 val;
+
+	if (eax) {
+		sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(func, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_EAX));
+		VMGEXIT();
+		val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
+
+		if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
+			return -EIO;
+
+		*eax = (val >> 32);
+	}
+
+	if (ebx) {
+		sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(func, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_EBX));
+		VMGEXIT();
+		val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
+
+		if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
+			return -EIO;
+
+		*ebx = (val >> 32);
+	}
+
+	if (ecx) {
+		sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(func, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_ECX));
+		VMGEXIT();
+		val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
+
+		if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
+			return -EIO;
+
+		*ecx = (val >> 32);
+	}
+
+	if (edx) {
+		sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(func, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_EDX));
+		VMGEXIT();
+		val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
+
+		if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
+			return -EIO;
+
+		*edx = (val >> 32);
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 /*
  * Boot VC Handler - This is the first VC handler during boot, there is no GHCB
  * page yet, so it only supports the MSR based communication with the
@@ -202,39 +254,19 @@ enum es_result sev_es_ghcb_hv_call(struct ghcb *ghcb, bool set_ghcb_msr,
 void __init do_vc_no_ghcb(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long exit_code)
 {
 	unsigned int fn = lower_bits(regs->ax, 32);
-	unsigned long val;
+	u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
 
 	/* Only CPUID is supported via MSR protocol */
 	if (exit_code != SVM_EXIT_CPUID)
 		goto fail;
 
-	sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(fn, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_EAX));
-	VMGEXIT();
-	val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
-	if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
+	if (sev_cpuid_hv(fn, 0, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx))
 		goto fail;
-	regs->ax = val >> 32;
 
-	sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(fn, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_EBX));
-	VMGEXIT();
-	val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
-	if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
-		goto fail;
-	regs->bx = val >> 32;
-
-	sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(fn, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_ECX));
-	VMGEXIT();
-	val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
-	if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
-		goto fail;
-	regs->cx = val >> 32;
-
-	sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(fn, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_EDX));
-	VMGEXIT();
-	val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
-	if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
-		goto fail;
-	regs->dx = val >> 32;
+	regs->ax = eax;
+	regs->bx = ebx;
+	regs->cx = ecx;
+	regs->dx = edx;
What is the intent behind declaring e?x as local variables, instead
of passing the addresses of regs->?x to sev_cpuid_hv()? Is it to
prevent touching any of the regs->?x unless there is no error from
sev_cpuid_hv()? If so, wouldn't it be better to hide this logic from
the callers by declaring the local variables in sev_cpuid_hv() itself,
and moving the four "*e?x = (val >> 32);" statements there to the end
of the function (just before last the return)? With that change, the
callers can safely pass the addresses of regs->?x to do_vc_no_ghcb(),
knowing that the values will only be touched if there is no error?
For me it was more about readability. E?X are well-defined as 32-bit
values, whereas regs->?x are longs. It seemed more readable to me to
have sev_cpuid_hv()/snp_cpuid() expect/return the actual native types,
and leave it up to the caller to cast/shift if necessary.

It also seems more robust for future re-use, since, for instance, if we
ever introduced another callsite that happened to already use u32 locally,
it seems like it would be a mess trying to setup up temp long* args or do
casts to pass them into these functions and then shift/cast them back just
so we could save a few lines at this particular callsite.
Venu
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help