Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] xen/x86: Add initial x2APIC ID to the per-vLAPIC save area

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 11:58:44AM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On 23/05/2024 15:32, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>      case 0xb:
> >> -        /*
> >> -         * In principle, this leaf is Intel-only.  In practice, it is 
> >> tightly
> >> -         * coupled with x2apic, and we offer an x2apic-capable APIC 
> >> emulation
> >> -         * to guests on AMD hardware as well.
> >> -         *
> >> -         * TODO: Rework topology logic.
> >> -         */
> >> -        if ( p->basic.x2apic )
> >> +        /* Don't expose topology information to PV guests */
> > 
> > Not sure whether we want to keep part of the comment about exposing
> > x2APIC to guests even when x2APIC is not present in the host.  I think
> > this code has changed and the comment is kind of stale now.
> 
> The comment is definitely stale. Nowadays x2APIC is fully supported by
> AMD, as is leaf 0xb. The fact we emulate the x2APIC seems hardly
> relevant in a CPUID leaf about topology. I could keep a note showing...
> 
>     /* Exposed alongside x2apic, as it's tightly coupled with it */
> 
> ... although that's directly implied by the conditional.

Yeah, I haven't gone through the history of this file, but I bet at
some point before the introduction of CPUID policies we leaked (part
of) the host CPUID contents in here.

It's also no longer true that the leaf is Intel only.

I fine either adding your newly proposed comment, or leaving it as-is.

> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  int guest_wrmsr_apic_base(struct vcpu *v, uint64_t val)
> >>  {
> >>      const struct cpu_policy *cp = v->domain->arch.cpu_policy;
Le> >> @@ -1449,7 +1465,7 @@ void vlapic_reset(struct vlapic *vlapic)
> >>      if ( v->vcpu_id == 0 )
> >>          vlapic->hw.apic_base_msr |= APIC_BASE_BSP;
> >>  
> >> -    vlapic_set_reg(vlapic, APIC_ID, (v->vcpu_id * 2) << 24);
> >> +    vlapic_set_reg(vlapic, APIC_ID, SET_xAPIC_ID(vlapic->hw.x2apic_id));
> >>      vlapic_do_init(vlapic);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> @@ -1514,6 +1530,16 @@ static void lapic_load_fixup(struct vlapic *vlapic)
> >>      const struct vcpu *v = vlapic_vcpu(vlapic);
> >>      uint32_t good_ldr = x2apic_ldr_from_id(vlapic->loaded.id);
> >>  
> >> +    /*
> >> +     * Loading record without hw.x2apic_id in the save stream, calculate 
> >> using
> >> +     * the traditional "vcpu_id * 2" relation. There's an implicit 
> >> assumption
> >> +     * that vCPU0 always has x2APIC0, which is true for the old relation, 
> >> and
> >> +     * still holds under the new x2APIC generation algorithm. While that 
> >> case
> >> +     * goes through the conditional it's benign because it still maps to 
> >> zero.
> >> +     */
> >> +    if ( !vlapic->hw.x2apic_id )
> >> +        vlapic->hw.x2apic_id = v->vcpu_id * 2;
> >> +
> >>      /* Skip fixups on xAPIC mode, or if the x2APIC LDR is already correct 
> >> */
> >>      if ( !vlapic_x2apic_mode(vlapic) ||
> >>           (vlapic->loaded.ldr == good_ldr) )
> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/hvm.h 
> >> b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/hvm.h
> >> index 0c9e6f15645d..e1f0585d75a9 100644
> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/hvm.h
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/hvm.h
> >> @@ -448,6 +448,7 @@ static inline void hvm_update_guest_efer(struct vcpu 
> >> *v)
> >>  static inline void hvm_cpuid_policy_changed(struct vcpu *v)
> >>  {
> >>      alternative_vcall(hvm_funcs.cpuid_policy_changed, v);
> >> +    vlapic_cpu_policy_changed(v);
> > 
> > Note sure whether this call would better be placed in
> > cpu_policy_updated() inside the is_hvm_vcpu() conditional branch.
> > 
> > hvm_cpuid_policy_changed() &c are just wrappers around the hvm_funcs
> > hooks, pulling vlapic functions in there is likely to complicate the
> > header dependencies in the long term.
> > 
> 
> That's how it was in v1 and I moved it in v2 answering one of Jan's
> feedback points.
> 
> I don't mind either way.

Oh (goes and reads Jan's reply to v1) I see.  Let's leave it as-is
then.

> 
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  static inline void hvm_set_tsc_offset(struct vcpu *v, uint64_t offset,
> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/vlapic.h 
> >> b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/vlapic.h
> >> index 88ef94524339..e8d41313abd3 100644
> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/vlapic.h
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/vlapic.h
> >> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
> >>  #define vlapic_xapic_mode(vlapic)                               \
> >>      (!vlapic_hw_disabled(vlapic) && \
> >>       !((vlapic)->hw.apic_base_msr & APIC_BASE_EXTD))
> >> +#define vlapic_x2apic_id(vlapic) ((vlapic)->hw.x2apic_id)
> >>  
> >>  /*
> >>   * Generic APIC bitmap vector update & search routines.
> >> @@ -107,6 +108,7 @@ int vlapic_ack_pending_irq(struct vcpu *v, int vector, 
> >> bool force_ack);
> >>  
> >>  int  vlapic_init(struct vcpu *v);
> >>  void vlapic_destroy(struct vcpu *v);
> >> +void vlapic_cpu_policy_changed(struct vcpu *v);
> >>  
> >>  void vlapic_reset(struct vlapic *vlapic);
> >>  
> >> diff --git a/xen/include/public/arch-x86/hvm/save.h 
> >> b/xen/include/public/arch-x86/hvm/save.h
> >> index 7ecacadde165..1c2ec669ffc9 100644
> >> --- a/xen/include/public/arch-x86/hvm/save.h
> >> +++ b/xen/include/public/arch-x86/hvm/save.h
> >> @@ -394,6 +394,8 @@ struct hvm_hw_lapic {
> >>      uint32_t             disabled; /* VLAPIC_xx_DISABLED */
> >>      uint32_t             timer_divisor;
> >>      uint64_t             tdt_msr;
> >> +    uint32_t             x2apic_id;
> >> +    uint32_t             rsvd_zero;
> > 
> > I think Jan requested for this field to be checked to be 0 for
> > incoming migrations, yet I don't see such check added.
> > 
> 
> It's on the next patch, when the checks are moved into the check hook.
> Doing it all as part of the same patch seemed dirty. I guess I can
> invert them.

Yeah, sorry, realized later.  I think the introduction of the lapic
record checking wants to be the first patch in the series, so that
when you introduce the field here you can check it's zero.

Thanks, Roger.