Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/fpu: Split fpu_setup_fpu() in two

["Alejandro Vallejo" <alejandro.vallejo@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon Aug 12, 2024 at 4:23 PM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.08.2024 15:41, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > @@ -1164,10 +1164,25 @@ static int cf_check hvm_load_cpu_ctxt(struct domain 
> > *d, hvm_domain_context_t *h)
> >      seg.attr = ctxt.ldtr_arbytes;
> >      hvm_set_segment_register(v, x86_seg_ldtr, &seg);
> >  
> > -    /* Cover xsave-absent save file restoration on xsave-capable host. */
> > -    vcpu_setup_fpu(v, xsave_enabled(v) ? NULL : v->arch.xsave_area,
> > -                   ctxt.flags & XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED ? ctxt.fpu_regs : 
> > NULL,
> > -                   FCW_RESET);
> > +    /*
> > +     * On Xen 4.1 and later the FPU state is restored on later HVM context 
> > in
> > +     * the migrate stream, so what we're doing here is initialising the FPU
> > +     * state for guests from even older versions of Xen.
> > +     *
> > +     * In particular:
> > +     *   1. If there's an XSAVE context later in the stream what we do 
> > here for
> > +     *      the FPU doesn't matter because it'll be overriden later.
> > +     *   2. If there isn't and the guest didn't use extended states it's 
> > still
> > +     *      fine because we have all the information we need here.
> > +     *   3. If there isn't and the guest DID use extended states (could've
> > +     *      happened prior to Xen 4.1) then we're in a pickle because we 
> > have
> > +     *      to make up non-existing state. For this case we initialise the 
> > FPU
> > +     *      as using x87/SSE only because the rest of the state is gone.
>
> Was this really possible to happen? Guests wouldn't have been able to
> turn on CR4.OSXSAVE, would they?
>
> Jan

You may be right, but my reading of the comment and the code was that
xsave_enabled(v) might be set and the XSAVE hvm context might be missing in the
stream. The archives didn't shed a lot more light than what the code already
gives away.

Otherwise it would've been far simpler to unconditionally pass
v->arch.xsave_area to the second parameter and let the xsave area to be
overriden by the follow-up HVM context with its actual state.

If my understanding is wrong, I'm happy to remove (3), as I don't think it
affects the code anyway. I thought however that it was a relevant data point
to leave paper trail for.

Cheers,
Alejandro